| Literature DB >> 35009716 |
Lili Li1,2, Shujuan Zhang1, Bin Wang1.
Abstract
The intelligent identification and classification of plant diseases is an important research objective in agriculture. In this study, in order to realize the rapid and accurate identification of apple leaf disease, a new lightweight convolutional neural network RegNet was proposed. A series of comparative experiments had been conducted based on 2141 images of 5 apple leaf diseases (rust, scab, ring rot, panonychus ulmi, and healthy leaves) in the field environment. To assess the effectiveness of the RegNet model, a series of comparison experiments were conducted with state-of-the-art convolutional neural networks (CNN) such as ShuffleNet, EfficientNet-B0, MobileNetV3, and Vision Transformer. The results show that RegNet-Adam with a learning rate of 0.0001 obtained an average accuracy of 99.8% on the validation set and an overall accuracy of 99.23% on the test set, outperforming all other pre-trained models. In other words, the proposed method based on transfer learning established in this research can realize the rapid and accurate identification of apple leaf disease.Entities:
Keywords: RegNet; apple leaf disease identification; complex environment; imbalanced dataset
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35009716 PMCID: PMC8749501 DOI: 10.3390/s22010173
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Example of apple leaf images: (a) rust; (b) scab; (c) ring rot; (d) Panonychus ulmi; (e) healthy.
The data distributions.
| Classes | Original Dataset | Balanced | Training Set | Validation Set | Augmented Dataset | Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | 597 | 597 | 429 | 119 | 1644 | 49 |
| Scab | 592 | 592 | 428 | 118 | 1638 | 46 |
| Rust | 622 | 622 | 444 | 124 | 1704 | 54 |
| Ring rot | 153 | 612 | 441 | 122 | 1641 | 49 |
| Panonychus ulmi | 177 | 708 | 505 | 141 | 1883 | 62 |
| Total | 2141 | 3131 | 2247 | 624 | 8510 | 260 |
Figure 2Structural framework of RegNet: (a) network; (b) body; (c) stage.
Figure 3Structural framework of the block: (a) X block, s = 1; (b) X block, s = 2.
Figure 4Comparison of two transfer learning methods: (a) the average accuracy curve; (b) the loss function curve.
Performance comparison of different optimizers for four network models.
| Model | Optimizers | Params | Average Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ShuffleNet | SGD | 2.3 M | 62.3 |
| Adam | 90.2 | ||
| RAdam | 77.9 | ||
| Ranger | 72.1 | ||
| MobileNetV3 | SGD | 5.4 M | 89.9 |
| Adam | 93.4 | ||
| RAdam | 93.1 | ||
| Ranger | 93.2 | ||
| EfficientNet-B0 | SGD | 5.3 M | 86.4 |
| Adam | 94.3 | ||
| RAdam | 94 | ||
| Ranger | 93.4 | ||
| RegNet | SGD | 5.2 M | 98.2 |
| Adam | 99.8 | ||
| RAdam | 99.8 | ||
| Ranger | 99.9 |
Figure 5Comparison of different models under the same optimizer: (a) Adam; (b) RAdam; (c) Ranger.
Figure 6The influence of learning rate on the model training effect: (a) average accuracy curve of the models; (b) loss curve of the models.
The average accuracy of the model with different learning rates.
| Pre-Trained Models | Accuracy on Validation Set (%) | Accuracy on Test Set (%) |
|---|---|---|
| RegNet-Adam-0.0001 | 99.8 | 99.23 |
| RegNet-Adam-0.0005 | 99.8 | 99.20 |
| RegNet-Adam-0.001 | 99.8 | 98.07 |
| RegNet-Adam-0.005 | 99.2 | 98.84 |
| RegNet-Adam-0.01 | 98.9 | 98.07 |
| RegNet-Adam-0.05 | 96.1 | 94.61 |
Figure 7The confusion matrix of the test set.
The results of different metrics.
| Category | Precision | Recall | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rust | 0.982 | 1.000 | 0.995 |
| Scab | 1.000 | 0.978 | 1.000 |
| Ring rot | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Panonychus ulmi | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| Healthy | 0.980 | 0.980 | 0.995 |
| Average value | 0.9924 | 0.9916 | 0.9980 |
Figure 8The performance of the two models: (a) the accuracy curve of the models; (b) the loss curve of the models.