Explainable deep learning in plant phenotyping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing human population and variable weather conditions, due to climate change, pose a threat to the world's food security. To improve global food security, we need to provide breeders with tools to develop crop cultivars that are more resilient to extreme weather conditions and provide growers with tools to more effectively manage biotic and abiotic stresses in their crops. Plant phenotyping, the measurement of a plant's structural and functional characteristics, has the potential to inform, improve and accelerate both breeders' selections and growers' management decisions. To improve the speed, reliability and scale of plant phenotyping procedures, many researchers have adopted deep learning methods to estimate phenotypic information from images of plants and crops. Despite the successful results of these image-based phenotyping studies, the representations learned by deep learning models remain difficult to interpret, understand, and explain. For this reason, deep learning models are still considered to be black boxes. Explainable AI (XAI) is a promising approach for opening the deep learning model's black box and providing plant scientists with image-based phenotypic information that is interpretable and trustworthy. Although various fields of study have adopted XAI to advance their understanding of deep learning models, it has yet to be well-studied in the context of plant phenotyping research. In this review article, we reviewed existing XAI studies in plant shoot phenotyping, as well as related domains, to help plant researchers understand the benefits of XAI and make it easier for them to integrate XAI into their future studies. An elucidation of the representations within a deep learning model can help researchers explain the model's decisions, relate the features detected by the model to the underlying plant physiology, and enhance the trustworthiness of image-based phenotypic information used in food production systems.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".