MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386861120 · doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1203546

Explainable deep learning in plant phenotyping

2023· review· en· W4386861120 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

VenueFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsDeep learningContext (archaeology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceFood securityData sciencePopulationMachine learningGeographyAgricultureEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.200 · 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