MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Addressing lighting and bounding box accuracy for the Embedded Automated Generator of Labeled Images (EAGL-I) system

2023· preprint· en· W4387735364 on OpenAlexaff
Tung Ki Wong, Michael A. Beck, Christopher P. Bidinosti, Christopher J. Henry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinimum bounding boxComputer scienceBounding overwatchArtificial intelligenceGenerator (circuit theory)Computer visionSegmentationNoise (video)Black boxImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Embedded Automated Generator of Labeled Images (EAGL-I) system is a tool for generating labeled images, particularly for data-driven methods, such as deep learning models. The system has already generated hundreds of thousands of images of weeds and crops. We present modifications made to the original system that are based on the experiences gathered from generating such large-scale datasets. The improvements relate to lighting conditions, ease of use, refined image segmentation, and pathfinding for camera-movements. To address lighting conditions, we made three major changes to the hardware. First, the blue keying fabric was replaced by solid black panels, mitigating reflections and achieving reliable color accuracy; second, sunlight entering the room through a window is diffused and partially blocked by a screen, achieving consistent and uniform lighting of the imaging environment; third, dimmable LED lights are installed allowing us to image with lower ISO and to reduce noise in the resulting images. A YOLO machine learning model was trained to replace the previous methods of estimating bounding boxes around the plants. This new way of creating bounding boxes adapts to different plant architectures, such as grasses or different kind of dicots. Finally, we implemented a version of the A* pathfinding algorithm to define save zones through which the camera will not be moved. Overall, these modifications improved system performance and image quality significantly, while making EAGL-I easier to use. We have extended potential applications of EAGL-I, particularly for plant phenotyping research and in fine-tuning machine learning models for image analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207