| Literature DB >> 34883905 |
Muhammad Hassan Maqsood1, Rafia Mumtaz1, Ihsan Ul Haq1, Uferah Shafi1, Syed Mohammad Hassan Zaidi1, Maryam Hafeez2.
Abstract
Wheat yellow rust is a common agricultural disease that affects the crop every year across the world. The disease not only negatively impacts the quality of the yield but the quantity as well, which results in adverse impact on economy and food supply. It is highly desired to develop methods for fast and accurate detection of yellow rust in wheat crop; however, high-resolution images are not always available which hinders the ability of trained models in detection tasks. The approach presented in this study harnesses the power of super-resolution generative adversarial networks (SRGAN) for upsampling the images before using them to train deep learning models for the detection of wheat yellow rust. After preprocessing the data for noise removal, SRGANs are used for upsampling the images to increase their resolution which helps convolutional neural network (CNN) in learning high-quality features during training. This study empirically shows that SRGANs can be used effectively to improve the quality of images and produce significantly better results when compared with models trained using low-resolution images. This is evident from the results obtained on upsampled images, i.e., 83% of overall test accuracy, which are substantially better than the overall test accuracy achieved for low-resolution images, i.e., 75%. The proposed approach can be used in other real-world scenarios where images are of low resolution due to the unavailability of high-resolution camera in edge devices.Entities:
Keywords: GANs; SRGANs; deep learning; super resolution; wheat stripe rust
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34883905 PMCID: PMC8659936 DOI: 10.3390/s21237903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Complete pipeline of the methodology used in this study.
Figure 2Image sample from the raw dataset.
Figure 3Output of Otsu’s segmentation.
Figure 4Leaf cropping in the images.
Figure 5Low-resolution image.
Figure 6High-resolution image output of SRGAN.
Figure 7Generator and discriminator architecture of SRGAN inspired by [7].
Figure 8CNN model architecture used in the study.
Results for models trained on low-resolution images.
| Model | Test Accuracy | Healthy | Resistant | Susceptible | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | ||
| CNN | 63% | 86% | 70% | 28% | 5% | 55% | 99% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CNN | 71% | 99% | 53% | 48% | 63% | 78% | 95% |
| CNN | 73% | 88% | 88% | 67% | 22% | 64% | 98% |
| CNN | 71% | 78% | 82% | 54% | 33% | 71% | 88% |
Figure 9Accuracy and loss graphs for training and validation on low-resolution images.
Figure 10Confusion matrices of the best results for test data. (a) Confusion matrix for low-resolution data. (b) Confusion matrix for high-resolution data.
Results for models trained on high-resolution images.
| Model | Test Accuracy | Healthy | Resistant | Susceptible | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | ||
| CNN | 55% | 100% | 10% | 35% | 59% | 71% | 96% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| CNN | 80% | 84% | 86% | 65% | 58% | 85% | 90% |
| CNN | 73% | 75% | 100% | 67% | 10% | 72% | 96% |
| CNN | 65% | 97% | 30% | 43% | 87% | 90% | 81% |
Figure 11Accuracy and loss graphs for training and validation on high-resolution images.
Best results obtained using different super resolution approaches.
| Approach | Test Accuracy | Healthy | Resistant | Susceptible | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | Precision | Recall | ||
| EDSR | 82% | 84% | 98% | 80% | 48% | 81% | 93% |
| WDSR | 80% | 97% | 76% | 65% | 65% | 79% | 97% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|