PlantSR: Super-Resolution Improves Object Detection in Plant Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advancements in computer vision, especially deep learning models, have shown considerable promise in tasks related to plant image object detection. However, the efficiency of these deep learning models heavily relies on input image quality, with low-resolution images significantly hindering model performance. Therefore, reconstructing high-quality images through specific techniques will help extract features from plant images, thus improving model performance. In this study, we explored the value of super-resolution technology for improving object detection model performance on plant images. Firstly, we built a comprehensive dataset comprising 1030 high-resolution plant images, named the PlantSR dataset. Subsequently, we developed a super-resolution model using the PlantSR dataset and benchmarked it against several state-of-the-art models designed for general image super-resolution tasks. Our proposed model demonstrated superior performance on the PlantSR dataset, indicating its efficacy in enhancing the super-resolution of plant images. Furthermore, we explored the effect of super-resolution on two specific object detection tasks: apple counting and soybean seed counting. By incorporating super-resolution as a pre-processing step, we observed a significant reduction in mean absolute error. Specifically, with the YOLOv7 model employed for apple counting, the mean absolute error decreased from 13.085 to 5.71. Similarly, with the P2PNet-Soy model utilized for soybean seed counting, the mean absolute error decreased from 19.159 to 15.085. These findings underscore the substantial potential of super-resolution technology in improving the performance of object detection models for accurately detecting and counting specific plants from images. The source codes and associated datasets related to this study are available at Github.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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".