Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 42 references

PhytoSynth: Leveraging Multi-modal Generative Models for Crop Disease Data Generation with Novel Benchmarking and Prompt Engineering Approach

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A mid-sized Stable Diffusion model, SD3.5M, is the best choice for generating synthetic crop disease images under real-world compute limits.

desk verdict Useful computational benchmark for crop-disease image generation; the efficiency numbers are the contribution, the LPIPS-based quality ranking is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01823 v1 pith:V5VO73VF submitted 2025-05-03 cs.CV cs.AIcs.ET

Nitin Rai , Arnold W. Schumann , Nathan Boyd This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.ET
keywords syntheticcropdiseasedataStableDiffusiontext-to-imagegenerationcomputationalbenchmarkingDreamboothLoRAfine-tuningLPIPSwatermelondiseases
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a mid-sized Stable Diffusion model, SD3.5M, is the best choice for generating synthetic crop disease images from a small set of real field samples. The authors fine-tuned three models—SDXL, SD3.5M, and SD3.5L—with Dreambooth and LoRA on 36 curated images of watermelon anthracnose and downy mildew, then benchmarked memory, power, energy, time, and image quality. SD3.5M used the least memory and power at inference, consumed about 1.02 kWh per 500 images, and achieved an LPIPS score of 0.34, beating SDXL's 0.35. The paper recommends SD3.5M for researchers in resource-constrained settings because it generates 500 synthetic images from 36 real samples in about 1.5 hours. This matters because it would make synthetic data augmentation for agricultural vision practical for small organizations without high-performance computing.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is Dreambooth and LoRA fine-tuning applied to Stable Diffusion variants. Dreambooth updates the whole denoising U-Net so that a unique identifier token (such as 'nbd') becomes bound to the disease concept, while LoRA injects low-rank matrices into the query, key, and value cross-attention layers to adapt the model cheaply. Prompt engineering weights disease terms in the text prompt, for example '(1.2)' after 'anthracnose', to emphasize lesion features. The benchmark itself is carried by a GPU-monitoring script that samples memory, power, and energy every second, and by LPIPS computed with a pretrained AlexNet as the sole image quality metric.

What would settle it

Fine-tune a disease detector on 500 synthetic images from SDXL and 500 from SD3.5M, then evaluate both on held-out real field images of anthracnose and downy mildew; if the detector trained on SDXL images matches or beats the one trained on SD3.5M images, the claimed advantage from the 0.01 LPIPS gap is falsified. A simpler check is to recompute LPIPS with different random seeds and different pretrained networks: if the 0.01 gap falls within the run-to-run spread, the ranking is not stable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that SD3.5M outperforms both SDXL and SD3.5L as a text-to-image generator of crop disease images, and that this can be established by a computational benchmark rather than by GAN-based image-to-image methods. Using 36 curated field images of anthracnose and downy mildew in watermelon, the authors fine-tuned all three models with Dreambooth and LoRA, then measured GPU memory, power draw, energy per 500 images, generation time, and LPIPS against real images. SD3.5M required roughly 18 GB of memory at inference, drew 180 W on average, used 1.02 kWh per 500 images, and scored LPIPS 0.34, while SDXL scored 0.35 with more than twice the memory and energy. The authors interpret the 0.01 LPIPS gap as meaningful for fine-grained disease symptoms and conclude that SD3.5M is the optimal model for resource-constrained agricultural settings.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that the LPIPS score, computed once with a pretrained AlexNet, reliably measures whether synthetic disease images will be useful for downstream agricultural vision tasks; no detector is trained, no human evaluation is run, and no error bars are given, so the 0.01 gap that drives the recommendation may not be meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher with a single high-end GPU can generate hundreds of synthetic disease images from a few dozen real samples in about 1.5 hours, reducing dependence on repeated field trips.
  • Small organizations without HPC clusters can adopt SD3.5M, since its roughly 18 GB inference memory and about 0.002 kWh per image fit typical server budgets.
  • The same pipeline—unique identifier, weighted prompt, Dreambooth and LoRA—transfers to other crop diseases as long as only one disease is trained at a time.
  • Reporting computational cost alongside image quality becomes the standard for choosing a generative model for agricultural data.
  • Faster synthetic generation lets vision models be retrained quickly as new on-farm disease threats emerge.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If LPIPS tracks downstream detection performance, this pipeline could make synthetic data a credible substitute for scarce field labels in plant pathology, but a detector experiment is the natural next test.
  • The 0.01 LPIPS gap between SD3.5M and SDXL is likely within run-to-run variance; recomputing LPIPS with several seeds and network backbones would show whether SD3.5M's edge is real.
  • Because mixing disease symptoms degrades output, the method is best for single-disease augmentation; a multi-disease dataset would require per-disease models, raising total compute cost.
  • The prompt-weighting recipe—bind a rare token to the target concept and upweight symptom terms—could generalize to other fine-grained agricultural disorders beyond diseases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents PhytoSynth, a pipeline for generating synthetic watermelon disease images (anthracnose and downy mildew) using text-to-image Stable Diffusion variants (SDXL, SD3.5M, SD3.5L) fine-tuned with DreamBooth and LoRA. It contributes a computational benchmarking study that measures GPU memory, power consumption, energy use, and generation time for training and inference on a single A100 GPU, along with a prompt-engineering strategy using unique identifiers and attention weights. The authors report that SD3.5M achieves the best trade-off, using approximately 18 GB memory, 180 W power, and 1.02 kWh per 500 generated images, with an LPIPS score of 0.34 versus 0.35 for SDXL. They recommend SD3.5M as the optimal choice for resource-constrained agricultural settings.

Significance. If the central claim is supported, the paper fills a real gap: practical computational benchmarking of diffusion-based generative models for crop disease image generation, an area previously dominated by GAN-based image-to-image translation without resource accounting. The strengths are the direct, real-hardware measurements of memory, power, and energy; the detailed documentation of the training setup and hyperparameters; the explicit treatment of data filtering with a domain expert; and the honest listing of limitations in Section 6. The prompt-engineering contribution using a key identifier and semantic weighting is concrete and useful for practitioners. However, the significance is tempered by the fact that the quality comparison rests on a single LPIPS measurement with no error bars and no downstream task validation, and by an overstatement of the 'in-field' provenance of the training data. These issues must be addressed before the recommendation can be considered fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.2 (Time taken vs. LPIPS score)] The quality ranking of the models rests entirely on a single LPIPS computation using a pretrained AlexNet, with no seed replication, no error bars, and no description of how the reference images were selected or how generated images were paired with them. The 0.01 difference between SD3.5M (0.34) and SDXL (0.35) is asserted to be 'significant' because of fine-grained disease symptoms, but no statistical test, confidence interval, or variance estimate is provided. Since LPIPS is known to vary with random seeds and reference-set composition, the claimed quality advantage of SD3.5M over SDXL is not established by the reported evidence. This is load-bearing because the final recommendation of SD3.5M as 'optimal' depends on it having both superior computational efficiency and at least comparable perceptual quality.
  2. [Abstract, Table 1, and Section 7] The abstract and conclusion repeatedly state that SD3.5M generates 500 synthetic images 'from just 36 in-field samples,' but Table 1 shows that for anthracnose, only 12 of the 36 training images came from the authors' fieldwork; the remaining 24 were downloaded from an open-access IPM repository. The term 'in-field samples' is therefore misleading and overstates the data-collection effort behind the claimed data-efficiency result. The text should be corrected to distinguish the 12 field-collected images from the 24 open-access images, and the abstract, Section 5.2, and Section 7 should use accurate provenance language.
  3. [Sections 1, 6, and 7 (motivation and conclusion)] The paper motivates the work by the need for synthetic crop disease images that improve downstream agricultural vision tasks such as disease detection and targeted spraying, yet no downstream detector or classifier is ever trained on the synthetic images, and no human evaluation is performed. The LPIPS score is used as a proxy for perceptual similarity, but the manuscript does not demonstrate that a lower LPIPS leads to better performance on the target application. Consequently, the statement in Section 6 that SD3.5M is 'the best-suited model to generate disease datasets' and the recommendation in Section 7 are stronger than the measurements support. Adding a simple downstream classification or detection experiment comparing synthetic data from each model would directly validate the utility claim and is within the scope of the presented pipeline.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.1 (after Figure 4 caption)] There is a garbled string of characters ('/uni00000037/uni0000004c/...') inserted between Figure 4 and Figure 5; this appears to be a formatting or PDF-extraction artifact and should be removed.
  2. [Section 5.2] The wording 'SD3.5M inference time was 1.5× more than SDXL (1.06 hours) and ≈2.2× faster compared to SD3.5L' is ambiguous; '1.5× more than' should read '1.5× longer than' to avoid implying that SD3.5M is faster than SDXL.
  3. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The abstract reports 'total energy use of 1.02 kWh/500 images' during inference, while Section 5.1 states 'SD3.5M requiring only 1.1 kWh/500 images' for the same setting; these numbers should be reconciled or clearly attributed to different measurement conditions.
  4. [Section 4.2.1] There is a typo in 'we explore their its inner working' that should read 'we explore their inner workings.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central comparison is a direct measurement of GPU resources, time, and LPIPS against an external pretrained AlexNet feature space.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that SD3.5M is the best of the three Stable Diffusion variants — is supported by direct measurements of GPU memory, power draw, energy consumption, training/inference time, and LPIPS scores. No parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no equation is inverted so that an output is equal to an input by construction. LPIPS is computed using a pretrained AlexNet (Sec. 5.2), which is an external benchmark independent of the paper's own training procedure, so the quality comparison is not self-definitional. The recommendation for SD3.5M is a selection among measured options, not a predicted quantity derived from the same measurements in a circular way. The only self-citation in the reference list (Rai et al. [26]) concerns an edge-computing weed identification application and is not load-bearing for any claim in this paper. The manuscript does contain non-circular weaknesses: the 0.01 LPIPS gap is reported without error bars or seed replication, no downstream detector validates that lower LPIPS improves disease-detection utility, and the abstract's '36 in-field samples' framing is inaccurate because only 12 of the 36 anthracnose training images came from the authors' fieldwork while 24 came from an open-access repository (Table 1). These are empirical-validity and reporting concerns, not instances of circular reasoning. The paper performs no mathematical derivation that could reduce to its inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that small curated sample sets are sufficient for Stable Diffusion fine-tuning, that LPIPS captures the utility of synthetic data, and that single-run measurements generalize. There are no fitted parameters or new entities.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Fine-tuning a pretrained Stable Diffusion model with Dreambooth and LoRA can learn disease-specific visual features from 12 to 36 images per class.
    The whole method depends on this; the paper provides qualitative examples but no quantitative evaluation of class fidelity.
  • domain assumption LPIPS, computed with a pretrained AlexNet, is a valid measure of synthetic disease image quality.
    Used as the sole quality metric; no human rating or downstream detector test.
  • domain assumption Single-run measurements on one NVIDIA A100 GPU are representative across hardware and repeated runs.
    No error bars or replication; the absolute numbers may not transfer to other GPUs or clusters.
  • domain assumption The dataset filtering, which discards 460 of 472 anthracnose images, leaves a representative set of disease symptoms.
    Expert curation is plausible, but the small remaining set may not cover the disease variability needed for robotics applications.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PhytoSynth: Leveraging Multi-modal Generative Models for Crop Disease Data Generation with Novel Benchmarking and Prompt Engineering Approach." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5VO73VF

@misc{pith2026250501823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PhytoSynth: Leveraging Multi-modal Generative Models for Crop Disease Data Generation with Novel Benchmarking and Prompt Engineering Approach},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5VO73VF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01823}
}
read the original abstract

Collecting large-scale crop disease images in the field is labor-intensive and time-consuming. Generative models (GMs) offer an alternative by creating synthetic samples that resemble real-world images. However, existing research primarily relies on Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)-based image-to-image translation and lack a comprehensive analysis of computational requirements in agriculture. Therefore, this research explores a multi-modal text-to-image approach for generating synthetic crop disease images and is the first to provide computational benchmarking in this context. We trained three Stable Diffusion (SD) variants-SDXL, SD3.5M (medium), and SD3.5L (large)-and fine-tuned them using Dreambooth and Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning techniques to enhance generalization. SD3.5M outperformed the others, with an average memory usage of 18 GB, power consumption of 180 W, and total energy use of 1.02 kWh/500 images (0.002 kWh per image) during inference task. Our results demonstrate SD3.5M's ability to generate 500 synthetic images from just 36 in-field samples in 1.5 hours. We recommend SD3.5M for efficient crop disease data generation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of proposed dataset for this research study: (a) our dataset that consists of variations, such as shadow, plastic mulch, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Pipeline for generative model training and synthetic im [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the generative pipeline for disease image synthesis using a stable diffusion model: (a) In the pixel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of memory usage and power consumption for SDXL, SD3.5M, and SD3.5L models during training and inference stages. The six graphs illustrate variations in resource utilization, with memory usage and power consumption plotted on the y-axes for training and infer…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time taken (hours) vs. LPIPS score measured for all the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example set of synthetic images generated for the watermelon disease dataset using: (a) SDXL, (b) SD3.5M, and (c) SD3.5L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Solving current lim- itations of deep learning based approaches for plant disease detection

    Marko Arsenovic, Mirjana Karanovic, Srdjan Sladojevic, Andras Anderla, and Darko Stefanovic. Solving current lim- itations of deep learning based approaches for plant disease detection. symmetry 11 (7): 939, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Scibert: A pre- trained language model for scientific text

    Iz Beltagy, Kyle Lo, and Arman Cohan. Scibert: A pre- trained language model for scientific text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.10676, 2019. 8

    arXiv 1903

  3. [3]

    Weed image augmentation by controlnet-added stable diffusion for multi-class weed detec- tion

    Boyang Deng and Yuzhen Lu. Weed image augmentation by controlnet-added stable diffusion for multi-class weed detec- tion. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 232:110123,

    work page

  4. [4]

    When synthetic plants get sick: Generating graded plant disease synthetic datasets with novel regression- conditional image-to-image diffusion models (diffusion- pix2pix)

    Itziar Egusquiza, Leire Benito-Del-Valle, Artzai Pic ´on, Arantza Bereciartua-P ´erez, Laura G ´omez, Andoni Elola, Elisabete Aramendi, Roc ´ıo Espejo, Till Eggers, Christian Klukas, et al. When synthetic plants get sick: Generating graded plant disease synthetic datasets with novel regression- conditional image-to-image diffusion models (diffusion- pix2p...

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Multi- temporal unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing for veg- etable mapping using an attention-based recurrent convolu- tional neural network

    Quanlong Feng, Jianyu Yang, Yiming Liu, Cong Ou, De- hai Zhu, Bowen Niu, Jiantao Liu, and Baoguo Li. Multi- temporal unmanned aerial vehicle remote sensing for veg- etable mapping using an attention-based recurrent convolu- tional neural network. Remote Sensing, 12(10):1668, 2020. 7

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Deep learning models for plant disease detection and diagnosis

    Konstantinos P Ferentinos. Deep learning models for plant disease detection and diagnosis. Computers and electronics in agriculture, 145:311–318, 2018. 7

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Generative adversarial networks

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial networks. Commu- nications of the ACM, 63(11):139–144, 2020. 2

    2020

  8. [8]

    A survey of datasets for computer vision in agri- culture

    Nico Heider, Lorenz Gunreben, Sebastian Z ¨urner, and Mar- tin Schieck. A survey of datasets for computer vision in agri- culture. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.16950, 2025. 1

    arXiv 2025

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Training compute-optimal large language mod- els

    Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, et al. Training compute-optimal large language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.15556, 2022. 6

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen- Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR, 1(2):3, 2022. 4, 5

    2022

  3. [11]

    Grapegan: Unsupervised image enhance- ment for improved grape leaf disease recognition

    Haibin Jin, Yue Li, Jianfang Qi, Jianying Feng, Dong Tian, and Weisong Mu. Grapegan: Unsupervised image enhance- ment for improved grape leaf disease recognition. Comput- ers and Electronics in Agriculture, 198:107055, 2022. 1

    2022

  4. [12]

    Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey

    Amirhossein Kazerouni, Ehsan Khodapanah Aghdam, Moein Heidari, Reza Azad, Mohsen Fayyaz, Ilker Haci- haliloglu, and Dorit Merhof. Diffusion models in medical imaging: A comprehensive survey. Medical image analysis, 88:102846, 2023. 2

    2023

  5. [13]

    Distri- fusion: Distributed parallel inference for high-resolution dif- fusion models

    Muyang Li, Tianle Cai, Jiaxin Cao, Qinsheng Zhang, Han Cai, Junjie Bai, Yangqing Jia, Kai Li, and Song Han. Distri- fusion: Distributed parallel inference for high-resolution dif- fusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogniti...

    2024

  6. [14]

    Planning and rendering: Towards prod- uct poster generation with diffusion models

    Zhaochen Li, Fengheng Li, Wei Feng, Honghe Zhu, Yaoyu Li, Zheng Zhang, Jingjing Lv, Junjie Shen, Zhangang Lin, Jingping Shao, et al. Planning and rendering: Towards prod- uct poster generation with diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08822, 2023. 2

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A lora is worth a thousand pictures

    Chenxi Liu, Towaki Takikawa, and Alec Jacobson. A lora is worth a thousand pictures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.12048,

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    A survey of public datasets for computer vision tasks in precision agriculture

    Yuzhen Lu and Sierra Young. A survey of public datasets for computer vision tasks in precision agriculture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 178:105760, 2020. 1, 2

    2020

  9. [17]

    Generative adversarial networks (gans) for image augmentation in agriculture: A systematic review

    Yuzhen Lu, Dong Chen, Ebenezer Olaniyi, and Yanbo Huang. Generative adversarial networks (gans) for image augmentation in agriculture: A systematic review. Comput- ers and Electronics in Agriculture, 200:107208, 2022. 1

    2022

  10. [18]

    Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781, 2013. 8

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Analysis of stable diffusion- derived fake weeds performance for training convolutional neural networks

    Hugo Moreno, Adri `a G´omez, Sergio Altares-L´opez, Angela Ribeiro, and Dionisio And´ujar. Analysis of stable diffusion- derived fake weeds performance for training convolutional neural networks. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 214:108324, 2023. 1

    2023

  12. [20]

    Application of a latent diffusion model to plant disease detection by gen- erating unseen class images

    Noriyuki Mori, Hiroki Naito, and Fumiki Hosoi. Application of a latent diffusion model to plant disease detection by gen- erating unseen class images. AgriEngineering, 6(4), 2024. 2

    2024

  13. [21]

    Harnessing the power of diffusion models for plant disease image augmentation

    Abdullah Muhammad, Zafar Salman, Kiseong Lee, and Dongil Han. Harnessing the power of diffusion models for plant disease image augmentation. Frontiers in Plant Sci- ence, 14:1280496, 2023. 2

    2023

  14. [22]

    General gaussian noise mechanisms and their optimality for unbiased mean estimation

    Aleksandar Nikolov and Haohua Tang. General gaussian noise mechanisms and their optimality for unbiased mean estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13850, 2023. 4

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Machine learning and handcrafted image processing methods for classifying common weeds in corn field

    Harsh Pathak, C Igathinathane, Kirk Howatt, and Zhao Zhang. Machine learning and handcrafted image processing methods for classifying common weeds in corn field. Smart agricultural technology, 5:100249, 2023. 1

    2023

  16. [24]

    Iden- tification of foliar disease regions on corn leaves using slic segmentation and deep learning under uniform background and field conditions

    Hieu Phan, Aanis Ahmad, and Dharmendra Saraswat. Iden- tification of foliar disease regions on corn leaves using slic segmentation and deep learning under uniform background and field conditions. IEEE Access , 10:111985–111995,

  17. [25]

    Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion

    Alec Radford, Jong Wook Kim, Chris Hallacy, Aditya Ramesh, Gabriel Goh, Sandhini Agarwal, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Pamela Mishkin, Jack Clark, et al. Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervi- sion. In International conference on machine learning, ...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Nitin Rai, Yu Zhang, Maria Villamil, Kirk Howatt, Michael Ostlie, and Xin Sun. Agricultural weed identification in im- ages and videos by integrating optimized deep learning ar- chitecture on an edge computing technology.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 216:108442, 2024. 6

    2024

  19. [27]

    Generating of synthetic datasets using diffusion models for solving computer vision tasks in urban applica- tions

    Ilya Reutov. Generating of synthetic datasets using diffusion models for solving computer vision tasks in urban applica- tions. Procedia Computer Science, 229:335–344, 2023. 2

    2023

  20. [28]

    Agribert: Knowledge-infused agricultural language models for match- ing food and nutrition

    Saed Rezayi, Zhengliang Liu, Zihao Wu, Chandra Dhakal, Bao Ge, Chen Zhen, Tianming Liu, and Sheng Li. Agribert: Knowledge-infused agricultural language models for match- ing food and nutrition. In IJCAI, pages 5150–5156, 2022. 8

    2022

  21. [29]

    Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation

    Nataniel Ruiz, Yuanzhen Li, Varun Jampani, Yael Pritch, Michael Rubinstein, and Kfir Aberman. Dreambooth: Fine tuning text-to-image diffusion models for subject-driven generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 2250...

    2023

  22. [30]

    Explainable artificial intelligence and inter- pretable machine learning for agricultural data analysis

    Masahiro Ryo. Explainable artificial intelligence and inter- pretable machine learning for agricultural data analysis. Ar- tificial Intelligence in Agriculture, 6:257–265, 2022. 4

    2022

  23. [31]

    Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding

    Chitwan Saharia, William Chan, Saurabh Saxena, Lala Li, Jay Whang, Emily L Denton, Kamyar Ghasemipour, Raphael Gontijo Lopes, Burcu Karagol Ayan, Tim Salimans, et al. Photorealistic text-to-image diffusion models with deep language understanding. Advances in neural information...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Improved techniques for training gans

    Tim Salimans, Ian Goodfellow, Wojciech Zaremba, Vicki Cheung, Alec Radford, Xi Chen, and Xi Chen. Improved techniques for training gans. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems . Curran Associates, Inc., 2016. 2

    2016

  25. [33]

    A systematic review of ex- plainable artificial intelligence models and applications: Re- cent developments and future trends

    A Saranya and R Subhashini. A systematic review of ex- plainable artificial intelligence models and applications: Re- cent developments and future trends. Decision analytics journal, 7:100230, 2023. 4

    2023

  26. [34]

    Synthetic image verification in the era of generative artificial intelli- gence: What works and what isn’t there yet

    Diangarti Tariang, Riccardo Corvi, Davide Cozzolino, Gio- vanni Poggi, Koki Nagano, and Luisa Verdoliva. Synthetic image verification in the era of generative artificial intelli- gence: What works and what isn’t there yet. IEEE Security & Privacy, 2024. 7

    2024

  27. [35]

    Detection of apple lesions in orchards based on deep learning methods of cyclegan and yolov3-dense

    Yunong Tian, Guodong Yang, Zhe Wang, En Li, and Zize Liang. Detection of apple lesions in orchards based on deep learning methods of cyclegan and yolov3-dense. Journal of Sensors, 2019(1):7630926, 2019. 2

    2019

  28. [36]

    Dcgan-based data augmentation for tomato leaf disease identification

    Qiufeng Wu, Yiping Chen, and Jun Meng. Dcgan-based data augmentation for tomato leaf disease identification. IEEE access, 8:98716–98728, 2020. 2

    2020

  29. [37]

    You don’t have to be perfect to be amazing: Unveil the utility of synthetic images

    Xiaodan Xing, Federico Felder, Yang Nan, Giorgos Papanas- tasiou, Simon Walsh, and Guang Yang. You don’t have to be perfect to be amazing: Unveil the utility of synthetic images. In International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention, pages 1...

  30. [38]

    A scoping review on technology applications in agricultural extension

    Zhihong Xu, Anjorin Ezekiel Adeyemi, Emily Catalan, Shuai Ma, Ashlynn Kogut, and Cristina Guzman. A scoping review on technology applications in agricultural extension. Plos one, 18(11):e0292877, 2023. 6

    2023

  31. [39]

    Jingcheng Zhang, Dong Shen, Dongmei Chen, Dazhou Ming, Dong Ren, and Zhihua Diao. Ismsfuse: Multi-modal fusing recognition algorithm for rice bacterial blight disease adaptable in edge computing scenarios.Computers and Elec- tronics in Agriculture, 223:109089, 2024. 7

    2024

  32. [40]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 586–595, 2018. 6

    2018

  33. [41]

    A novel few-shot learning framework based on diffusion models for high-accuracy sunflower disease detection and classification

    Huachen Zhou, Weixia Li, Pei Li, Yifei Xu, Lin Zhang, Xingyu Zhou, Zihan Zhao, Enqi Li, and Chunli Lv. A novel few-shot learning framework based on diffusion models for high-accuracy sunflower disease detection and classification. Plants, 14(3):339, 2025. 2

    2025

  34. [42]

    Data augmentation using improved cdcgan for plant vigor rat- ing

    Fengle Zhu, Mengzhu He, and Zengwei Zheng. Data augmentation using improved cdcgan for plant vigor rat- ing. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 175:105603,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.