| Literature DB >> 35665281 |
Jianlei Kong1, Chengcai Yang1, Yang Xiao1, Sen Lin2, Kai Ma3, Qingzhen Zhu4.
Abstract
Diseases and pests are essential threat factors that affect agricultural production, food security supply, and ecological plant diversity. However, the accurate recognition of various diseases and pests is still challenging for existing advanced information and intelligence technologies. Disease and pest recognition is typically a fine-grained visual classification problem, which is easy to confuse the traditional coarse-grained methods due to the external similarity between different categories and the significant differences among each subsample of the same category. Toward this end, this paper proposes an effective graph-related high-order network with feature aggregation enhancement (GHA-Net) to handle the fine-grained image recognition of plant pests and diseases. In our approach, an improved CSP-stage backbone network is first formed to offer massive channel-shuffled features in multiple granularities. Secondly, relying on the multilevel attention mechanism, the feature aggregation enhancement module is designed to exploit distinguishable fine-grained features representing different discriminating parts. Meanwhile, the graphic convolution module is constructed to analyse the graph-correlated representation of part-specific interrelationships by regularizing semantic features into the high-order tensor space. With the collaborative learning of three modules, our approach can grasp the robust contextual details of diseases and pests for better fine-grained identification. Extensive experiments on several public fine-grained disease and pest datasets demonstrate that the proposed GHA-Net achieves better performances in accuracy and efficiency surpassing several other existing models and is more suitable for fine-grained identification applications in complex scenes.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35665281 PMCID: PMC9162821 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4391491
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Intell Neurosci
Figure 1Schematic diagram of the proposed model structure.
Figure 2Illustrations of CSP-stage module.
Figure 3FABM attention module.
Figure 4Schematic diagram of graph feature description.
AI Challenger experiment results of agricultural pests and diseases.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse-grained | VGG19 [ | 94.1 | 86.2 | 85.7 | 0.86 |
| ResNet50 [ | 94.5 | 86.4 | 85.8 | 0.86 | |
| Inception [ | 95.0 | 86.9 | 86.0 | 0.86 | |
| DenseNet [ | 95.3 | 86.8 | 86.3 | 0.87 | |
| CSPNet50 [ | 95.6 | 86.9 | 86.3 | 0.87 | |
| Senet [ | 95.8 | 86.9 | 86.2 | 0.87 | |
| Fine-grained | LIR [ | 95.9 | 87.0 | 86.1 | 0.87 |
| WSAP [ | 96.2 | 87.1 | 86.3 | 0.87 | |
| FBSD [ | 96.4 | 87.3 | 86.4 | 0.87 | |
| GHA-Net | 96.4 | 88.3 | 87.4 | 0.89 | |
The experimental results of cassava agricultural diseases and pests.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse-grained | VGG19 [ | 88.0 | 79.0 | 77.8 | 0.78 |
| ResNet50 [ | 89.7 | 77.0 | 74.5 | 0.76 | |
| Inception [ | 88.5 | 79.3 | 78.2 | 0.78 | |
| DenseNet [ | 89.1 | 79.6 | 78.4 | 0.79 | |
| CSPNet50 [ | 92.3 | 80.1 | 80.1 | 0.81 | |
| Senet [ | 94.5 | 84.3 | 80.2 | 0.82 | |
| Fine-grained | LIR [ | 98.5 | 88.3 | 86.6 | 0.88 |
| WSAP [ | 98.4 | 88.4 | 87.2 | 0.88 | |
| FBSD [ | 98.6 | 87.2 | 86.5 | 0.87 | |
| GHA-Net | 97.4 | 89.2 | 87.9 | 0.90 | |
IP102 pest test results.
| Methods | Accuracy (%) | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | F1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coarse-grained | VGG19 [ | 54.1 | 43.1 | 42.0 | 0.43 |
| ResNet50 [ | 54.7 | 43.4 | 42.1 | 0.43 | |
| Inception [ | 55.3 | 43.4 | 42.3 | 0.43 | |
| DenseNet [ | 55.4 | 43.6 | 42.4 | 0.43 | |
| CSPNet50 [ | 55.6 | 43.9 | 42.4 | 0.44 | |
| Senet [ | 54.3 | 45.1 | 42.6 | 0.44 | |
| Fine-grained | LIR [ | 56.9 | 45.4 | 42.9 | 0.44 |
| WSAP [ | 56.8 | 45.6 | 43.3 | 0.45 | |
| FBSD [ | 56.4 | 45.4 | 43.1 | 0.44 | |
| GHA-Net | 57.1 | 46.7 | 45.3 | 0.48 | |
Figure 5F1 scores of different models on different datasets.
Figure 6(a) Loss function curves on AI Challenger. (b) Loss function curves on Cassava. (c) Loss function curves on IP102.
Figure 7(a) Confusion matrix on AI Challenger. (b) Confusion matrix on Cassava. (c) Confusion matrix on IP102.
Figure 8Attention visualization of different models.
Ablation experiment results.
| Method | ACC (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| AI Challenger | Cassava leaves | IP102 | |
| ResNet50 | 94.5 | 89.7 | 54.7 |
| ResNet50+FABM | 95.3 | 94.2 | 55.9 |
| ResNet50+ SFL | 95.0 | 92.8 | 55.4 |
| ResNet50+ FABM + SFL | 96.0 | 96.1 | 56.9 |
| CSP | 95.6 | 92.3 | 55.6 |
| CSP + FABM | 96.0 | 95.2 | 56.4 |
| CSP + SFL | 95.9 | 93.6 | 56.0 |
| CSP + FABM + SFL | 96.4 | 96.4 | 57.1 |
Figure 9Heat map visualization of different FABM stages.