MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322740611 · doi:10.34133/plantphenomics.0037

Benchmarking Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning Methods for Image-Based Plant Phenotyping

2023· article· en· W4322740611 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlant Phenomics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsComputer scienceBenchmarkingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningLeverage (statistics)Benchmark (surveying)Pattern recognition (psychology)Supervised learningLabeled data

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rise of self-supervised learning (SSL) methods in recent years presents an opportunity to leverage unlabeled and domain-specific datasets generated by image-based plant phenotyping platforms to accelerate plant breeding programs. Despite the surge of research on SSL, there has been a scarcity of research exploring the applications of SSL to image-based plant phenotyping tasks, particularly detection and counting tasks. We address this gap by benchmarking the performance of 2 SSL methods-momentum contrast (MoCo) v2 and dense contrastive learning (DenseCL)-against the conventional supervised learning method when transferring learned representations to 4 downstream (target) image-based plant phenotyping tasks: wheat head detection, plant instance detection, wheat spikelet counting, and leaf counting. We studied the effects of the domain of the pretraining (source) dataset on the downstream performance and the influence of redundancy in the pretraining dataset on the quality of learned representations. We also analyzed the similarity of the internal representations learned via the different pretraining methods. We find that supervised pretraining generally outperforms self-supervised pretraining and show that MoCo v2 and DenseCL learn different high-level representations compared to the supervised method. We also find that using a diverse source dataset in the same domain as or a similar domain to the target dataset maximizes performance in the downstream task. Finally, our results show that SSL methods may be more sensitive to redundancy in the pretraining dataset than the supervised pretraining method. We hope that this benchmark/evaluation study will guide practitioners in developing better SSL methods for image-based plant phenotyping.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it