| Literature DB >> 35755664 |
Waleed Albattah1, Ali Javed2, Marriam Nawaz2, Momina Masood2, Saleh Albahli1.
Abstract
The role of agricultural development is very important in the economy of a country. However, the occurrence of several plant diseases is a major hindrance to the growth rate and quality of crops. The exact determination and categorization of crop leaf diseases is a complex and time-required activity due to the occurrence of low contrast information in the input samples. Moreover, the alterations in the size, location, structure of crop diseased portion, and existence of noise and blurriness effect in the input images further complicate the classification task. To solve the problems of existing techniques, a robust drone-based deep learning approach is proposed. More specifically, we have introduced an improved EfficientNetV2-B4 with additional added dense layers at the end of the architecture. The customized EfficientNetV2-B4 calculates the deep key points and classifies them in their related classes by utilizing an end-to-end training architecture. For performance evaluation, a standard dataset, namely, the PlantVillage Kaggle along with the samples captured using a drone is used which is complicated in the aspect of varying image samples with diverse image capturing conditions. We attained the average precision, recall, and accuracy values of 99.63, 99.93, and 99.99%, respectively. The obtained results confirm the robustness of our approach in comparison to other recent techniques and also show less time complexity.Entities:
Keywords: CNN; EfficientNetV2; agriculture; classification; deep learning; plant disease
Year: 2022 PMID: 35755664 PMCID: PMC9218756 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2022.808380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 6.627
FIGURE 1Class-wise detailed description of the PlantVillage dataset.
FIGURE 2Sample images of PlantVillage dataset.
FIGURE 3Architecture of the proposed model based on improved EfficientNetV2-B4.
FIGURE 4Structural details of MBConv4, Fused-MBConv4, and SE block.
Details of blocks and layers used in the proposed model.
| Block/Layer | Resolution | Channel |
| BatchNorm |
|
|
| Conv (3 × 3) | 112 × 112 | 40 |
| 2 × Fused-MBConv1 | 112 × 112 | 16 |
| 3 × Fused-MBConv4 | 56 × 56 | 40 |
| 2 × Fused-MBConv4 | 28 × 28 | 56 |
| 5 × MBConv4 | 14 × 14 | 112 |
| 7 × MBConv6 | 14 × 14 | 136 |
| 12 × MBConv6 | 7 × 7 | 232 |
| Conv (1 × 1) | 7 × 7 | 232 |
| Global average pooling |
| |
| Dense |
| |
| Dropout |
| |
| Dense |
| |
| Dropout |
| |
| Dense |
| |
| Fully connected (FC) | ||
| Softmax | ||
Bold means the architectures are improved.
Description of framework hyper-parameters.
| Network parameters | Value |
| Epochs | 10 |
| Learning rate score | 0.001 |
| Batch size | 12 |
| Optimizer | Stochastic gradient descent (SGD) |
FIGURE 5Visual representation of training loss graph.
FIGURE 6Visual representation of training accuracy graph.
Comparative analysis of different activation functions.
| Improved EfficientNetV2 Method with different activation function | Accuracy (%) |
| Sigmoid | 99.89 |
| ReLU | 99.93 |
| PReLU | 99.94 |
| LeakyReLU | 99.96 |
| Swish | 99.99 |
FIGURE 7Class-wise precision and recall values of the proposed work.
FIGURE 8Class-wise F1-score and error rates.
FIGURE 9Confusion matrix of the presented method.
Comparative analysis of proposed approach in terms of computational complexity with the base framework.
| Method | Total trainable framework parameters (Million) | Processing time (ms) |
| Inception V4 | 41.2 | 4042 |
| VGG-16 | 119.6 | 1051 |
| ResNet-50 | 23.6 | 1583 |
| ResNet-101 | 42.5 | 2766 |
| ResNet-152 | 58.5 | 4366 |
| DenseNet-201 | 20 | 2573 |
| EfficientNet | 19.4 | 1548 |
| EfficientNetV2 | 15.2 | 1125 |
| Improved EfficientNetV2 | 14.4 | 1053 |
FIGURE 10Performance comparison of the presented approach with the base methods.
Performance comparison of the presented framework with machine learning (ML)-based classifiers.
| Classifier | Execution time (s) | Total trainable model parameters (Million) | Accuracy |
| Deep-keypoints along with the RF classifier ( | – | – | 93.4% |
| Deep-keypoints along with the ELM classifier ( | – | – | 84.94% |
| Deep-keypoints along with the DT classifier ( | – | – | 77.8% |
| Deep-keypoints along with the SVM classifier ( | 12 mn 21 | 25.5 | 98.01% |
| Deep-keypoints along with the KNN classifier ( | 12 mn 21 | 25.5 | 91.01% |
| Proposed |
|
|
Bold means the architectures are improved.
Performance analysis of proposed method with recent techniques.
| Method | Total trainable model parameters (Million) | Precision | Recall | F1-score | Accuracy |
| Residual Net ( | 22 | 99.28% | 99.26% | 99.27% | 99.26% |
| L-CSMS ( | 5.44 | – | – | – | 97.90% |
| GoogleNet ( | 5 | 99.35% | 99.35% | 99.35% | 99.35% |
| Custom CNN( | _ | 96.47% | 99.89% | 98.15% | 96.46% |
| MobileNet-Beta ( | _ | – | 99.01% | – | 99.85% |
| Proposed |
|
|
|
|
|
Bold means the architectures are improved.