Leveraging Guided Backpropagation to Select Convolutional Neural Networks for Plant Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNN) has allowed researchers to perform plant classification tasks previously thought impossible and rely on human judgment. Researchers often develop complex CNN models to achieve better performances, introducing over-parameterization and forcing the model to overfit on a training dataset. The most popular process for evaluating overfitting in a deep learning model is using accuracy and loss curves. Train and loss curves may help understand the performance of a model but do not provide guidance on how the model could be modified to attain better performance. In this article, we analyzed the relation between the features learned by a model and its capacity and showed that a model with higher representational capacity might learn many subtle features that may negatively affect its performance. Next, we showed that the shallow layers of a deep learning model learn more diverse features than the ones learned by the deeper layers. Finally, we propose SSIM cut curve, a new way to select the depth of a CNN model by using the pairwise similarity matrix between the visualization of the features learned at different depths by using Guided Backpropagation. We showed that our proposed method could potentially pave a new way to select a better CNN model.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".