Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 55 references

Crop Pest Classification Using Deep Learning Techniques: A Review

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 37-study review maps crop pest classification from plain CNNs to hybrid and transformer models.

desk verdict Useful newcomer's map of crop pest deep learning, but the systematic selection claim is not reproducible from the paper's own PRISMA arithmetic. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01494 v3 pith:236LBEAQ submitted 2025-07-02 cs.CV cs.AI

Muhammad Hassam Ejaz , Muhammad Bilal , Usman Habib , Muhammad Attique , Tae-Sun Chung This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords croppestclassificationdeeplearningvisiontransformersconvolutionalneuralnetworkshybridCNN-transformerYOLOobjectdetectionIP102datasetagriculturalAI
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

This review tries to establish a map of how deep learning has been used to classify insect pests on crops between 2018 and 2025, based on 37 selected studies. Its central claim is that the field follows a clear trajectory: early work relied on convolutional neural networks, while newer work shifts to vision transformers and hybrid CNN-transformer models that report higher accuracy and better contextual understanding. A sympathetic reader would care because the review organizes the literature into a usable taxonomy by crop, pest type, model architecture, dataset, and challenge, and in doing so names the benchmarks and open problems that determine whether automated pest monitoring can move from lab to field. If the review is right, the practical direction is set: YOLO-family detectors for locating pests, hybrid architectures for fine-grained classification, and larger, more balanced datasets as the main bottleneck.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the review's five-axis taxonomy (crop, pest type, AI technique, dataset, challenge) together with a systematic selection protocol that filters 355 initial records down to 37 studies. The taxonomy is the load-bearing object: it converts individual papers into comparable entries and is what lets the review claim that a CNN-to-hybrid/transformer trajectory and a fixed set of challenges are genuine trends rather than isolated results.

What would settle it

Recompute the Section 2 screening numbers: 355 records minus 21 duplicates is 334, 334 minus 172 title-or-abstract exclusions is 162 rather than the stated 166, and 162 minus 121 full-text exclusions is 41 rather than 37. Counting the studies actually cited and comparing that number to the claimed 37 would settle whether the systematic-coverage claim holds; a direct CNN-versus-transformer-versus-hybrid benchmark on IP102 under equal compute would test the trajectory claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that published pest-classification research from 2018 to 2025 is not a random collection of case studies but a structured field with five recurring dimensions: crop, pest type, technique, dataset, and challenge. It reports that CNN classifiers dominated early work and often exceed 90% accuracy on curated datasets, while vision transformers and hybrid CNN-transformer models now achieve comparable or higher accuracy, particularly where global context or fine-grained differences matter, citing examples such as EViTA on peanut pests and CactiViT on cactus cochineal. At the same time, it documents persistent bottlenecks: the IP102 benchmark's imbalanced 102-class distribution keeps baseline accuracy below 50%, small pests occupy too few pixels for standard detectors, field conditions degrade accuracy, and models do not transfer well across crops or regions. The review presents these findings through a taxonomy and summary tables rather than new experiments.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 37 studies described are the representative output of the systematic search whose arithmetic is reported in Section 2; if that count or the selection is wrong, the review's claim to map the field loses its grounding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers entering the area get a checklist: choose a crop, pest type, architecture family, dataset, and challenge to address, with the review's tables mapping who has already done what.
  • If the trajectory claim holds, new high-accuracy systems will be hybrids or transformer-enhanced detectors, and pure CNN classifiers on small datasets will serve as baselines rather than endpoints.
  • Benchmarking on IP102 remains a stricter test than custom crop-specific datasets, and the sub-50% baseline accuracy marks the fine-grained generalization gap.
  • Deployment claims are becoming central: smartphone and edge-device models such as CactiViT and lightweight YOLO variants are treated as realistic, so efficiency is now part of the correctness story.
  • Data scarcity, not architecture, is the limiting factor, with self-supervised pre-training and augmentation as the emerging mitigations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The review does not itself run a controlled comparison; a direct test would be to compare pure-CNN, pure-transformer, and hybrid models on the same public benchmark (for example IP102) under identical training budgets, since the trajectory claim predicts hybrids should win.
  • The small-pest challenge points to a concrete research program the review describes but does not develop: pairing super-resolution or patch-based high-resolution inputs with attention modules, tested on sticky-trap or drone imagery.
  • The reported screening arithmetic is internally inconsistent (334 minus 172 leaves 162, and subtracting 121 leaves 41, not 37), so the systematic-coverage claim should be checked against the actual reference list before the 37-study count is relied upon.
  • If the trajectory is correct, a practical consequence is that agricultural monitoring systems will standardize on a two-stage recipe: a YOLO-family detector for localization and counting plus a hybrid classifier for species-level identification, deployed on edge hardware.
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. This paper is a literature review of deep learning methods for crop pest classification, claiming to survey 37 systematically selected studies published between 2018 and 2025. It organizes the literature by crop, pest type, model architecture (CNN, vision transformer, hybrid, object detection), datasets, and technical challenges, and argues that the field has shifted from CNN-only models toward hybrid and transformer-based models. The review concludes by discussing challenges such as class imbalance, small-pest detection, generalization, and edge deployment, and suggests future research directions.

Significance. As a review, the paper's value depends entirely on the reliability and representativeness of its literature selection and on the correctness of its attributions. If the systematic selection were as described, the taxonomy and tables would provide a useful map of the field. The paper has strengths: it covers a wide range of studies, identifies key benchmark datasets (IP102, PlantVillage), offers a structured taxonomy, and outlines important open challenges, including emerging techniques such as quantum-inspired CNNs and diffusion-based augmentation. However, the internal inconsistencies noted below (PRISMA arithmetic and citation/table mismatches) undermine confidence in the review's central claim of systematic coverage, as the set of 37 studies cannot be reconstructed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2] The reported screening numbers are internally inconsistent. 355-21=334; 334-172=162, not 166; and 162-121=41 (or 166-121=45), not 37. No recalculation using the stated figures yields the final set. Furthermore, the manuscript never identifies which 37 studies are included. These two problems together make the systematic-coverage claim unreproducible, and since the abstract and conclusion explicitly stake the review's value on '37 carefully selected studies,' this is a load-bearing issue.
  2. [Table 1] The tomato YOLOv3 study is attributed to reference [17], but Section 4.2 attributes it to Liu and Wang [14], and reference [17] is the tea YOLOv8 paper. Similarly, Section 4.1 describes reference [12] as a CNN-based rice pest classifier, whereas the cited reference is a transformer-based pest detector (used as such in Sections 6.2 and 8.2). These misattributions mean the tables and text do not reliably allow readers to identify the reviewed studies.
  3. [Section 7.5] The sentence 'In addition to established benchmark datasets like IP102, PlantVillage, and LLPD' introduces 'LLPD' without ever defining it. Since Section 7 is meant to describe benchmark datasets, this omitted definition is a substantive gap. Additionally, the subsections are titled 'Xei-1' and 'Xei-2,' which should be 'Xie-1' and 'Xie-2' after the author's name.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7.1] 'baseline CNN accuracy was 49' should read '49%' for clarity.
  2. [Section 3] The term 'HPMA-ViT' is used without definition; the later Section 6.3 refers to 'HP-MHA' (hybrid pooled multi-head attention), so the acronym should be introduced consistently.
  3. [Section 4.1] The statement that 'the IP102 benchmark... has exposed the difficulty of fine-grained classification with a baseline accuracy below 50% (ResNet-50)' conflicts with Section 7.1's 'baseline CNN accuracy was 49' only in presentation; the numbers should be presented with a consistent notation.
  4. [Tables 3-6] Several table captions list 'Y ear' for 'Year'; this typo should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review summarizes external studies; the Section 2 counting inconsistency is a reproducibility/correctness issue, not a circular reasoning loop.

full rationale

This paper is a literature review, not a derivation or prediction exercise. It contains no fitted parameters, no model trained on a subset and then used to predict a closely related quantity, and no mathematical argument whose conclusion is equivalent to its premises. The central claims—that early work used CNNs and later work shifted to hybrid and transformer models, and that challenges such as class imbalance, small-pest detection, generalization, and edge deployment remain—are inductive summaries of the cited external studies, and those citations are independent published sources rather than the authors' own prior work. The Section 2 PRISMA arithmetic inconsistency (355−21=334, 334−172=162 not 166, and 162−121=41 not 37) is a verifiable reproducibility and quality-control problem, but it is not circularity: the claimed inclusion count is not an input that the review's conclusions feed back into. No passage uses a self-citation as the load-bearing justification for a claim, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' earlier work, and no known result is merely renamed. Accordingly, no circular step is present, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review has no free parameters or invented entities. It rests on two domain assumptions: that its screening process produced the claimed 37-study sample, and that the performance numbers it transcribes from the primary literature are accurate and comparable. Both assumptions are weakened by internal inconsistencies (PRISMA arithmetic and reference/table mismatches) documented in the red flags.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The final set of 37 studies is the valid output of the described systematic screening process.
    Section 2's screening counts are internally inconsistent (334-172=162 not 166; 166-121=45 not 37), so this assumption is not established by the paper.
  • domain assumption Reported performance numbers from the cited studies are transcribed accurately and are directly comparable across datasets and papers.
    The review compares accuracies such as 99.9%, 92%, and 93% mAP from different custom datasets without normalizing for difficulty; the visible table/reference mismatches (for example Table 1 entry for [17]) show transcription is not reliable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crop Pest Classification Using Deep Learning Techniques: A Review." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/236LBEAQ

@misc{pith2026250701494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crop Pest Classification Using Deep Learning Techniques: A Review},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/236LBEAQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01494}
}
read the original abstract

Insect pests continue to bring a serious threat to crop yields around the world, and traditional methods for monitoring them are often slow, manual, and difficult to scale. In recent years, deep learning has emerged as a powerful solution, with techniques like convolutional neural networks (CNNs), vision transformers (ViTs), and hybrid models gaining popularity for automating pest detection. This review looks at 37 carefully selected studies published between 2018 and 2025, all focused on AI-based pest classification. The selected research is organized by crop type, pest species, model architecture, dataset usage, and key technical challenges. The early studies relied heavily on CNNs but latest work is shifting toward hybrid and transformer-based models that deliver higher accuracy and better contextual understanding. Still, challenges like imbalanced datasets, difficulty in detecting small pests, limited generalizability, and deployment on edge devices remain significant hurdles. Overall, this review offers a structured overview of the field, highlights useful datasets, and outlines the key challenges and future directions for AI-based pest monitoring systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for literature selection. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Taxonomy of pest classification approaches. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Usage Frequency of AI Techniques in Pest Classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Microscopic Insect Pest Detection in Tea Plantations: Improved YOLOv8 Model Based on Deep Learning

    Wang Z, Zhang S, Chen L, Wu W, Wang H, Liu X, et al. Microscopic Insect Pest Detection in Tea Plantations: Improved YOLOv8 Model Based on Deep Learning. Agriculture. 2024;14(10):1739. August 21, 2025 23/26

    work page 2024

  2. [14]

    Tomato Diseases and Pests Detection Based on Improved Yolo V3 Convolutional Neural Network

    Liu J, Wang X. Tomato Diseases and Pests Detection Based on Improved Yolo V3 Convolutional Neural Network. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020;11:898. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00898

    work page arXiv 2020

  3. [12]

    A transformer-based model with feature compensation and local information enhancement for end-to-end pest detection

    Liu H, Zhan Y, Sun J, Mao Q, Wu T. A transformer-based model with feature compensation and local information enhancement for end-to-end pest detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2025;231:109920. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2025.109920

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations—F AO

    Canton H. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations—F AO. In: The Europa directory of international organizations 2021. Routledge; 2021. p. 297–305

    work page 2021

  5. [2]

    Using Deep Learning for Image-Based Plant Disease Detection

    Mohanty S, Hughes D, Salath´ e M. Using Deep Learning for Image-Based Plant Disease Detection. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.01419

    arXiv 2016

  6. [3]

    Using image augmentation techniques and convolutional neural networks to identify insect infestations on tomatoes

    Al-Shannaq M, Alkhateeb SN, Wedyan M. Using image augmentation techniques and convolutional neural networks to identify insect infestations on tomatoes. Heliyon. 2025;11(1)

    work page 2025

  7. [4]

    Deep Learning for Image-Based Cassava Disease Detection

    Ramcharan A, Baranowski K, McCloskey P, Ahmed B, Legg J, Hughes DP. Deep Learning for Image-Based Cassava Disease Detection. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;Volume 8 - 2017. doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01852

    work page arXiv 2017

  8. [5]

    An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale

    Dosovitskiy A, Beyer L, Kolesnikov A, Weissenborn D, Zhai X, Unterthiner T, et al. An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale. In: International Conference on Learning Representations; 2020

    work page 2020

Show all 55 references
  1. [6]

    Improved Lightweight YOLOv8 Model for Rice Disease Detection in Multi-Scale Scenarios

    Wang J, Ma S, Wang Z, Ma X, Yang C, Chen G, et al. Improved Lightweight YOLOv8 Model for Rice Disease Detection in Multi-Scale Scenarios. Agronomy. 2025;15(2). doi:10.3390/agronomy15020445

    2025 doi

  2. [7]

    CactiViT: Image-based smartphone application and transformer network for diagnosis of cactus cochineal

    Berka A, Hafiane A, Es-Saady Y, El Hajji M, Canals R, Bouharroud R. CactiViT: Image-based smartphone application and transformer network for diagnosis of cactus cochineal. Artificial Intelligence in Agriculture. 2023;9:12–21

    2023

  3. [8]

    IP102: A Large-Scale Benchmark Dataset for Insect Pest Recognition

    Wu J, He Y, Zhang B, Chen H, Liu J, Wang R, et al. IP102: A Large-Scale Benchmark Dataset for Insect Pest Recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2019; p. 8787–8796

    2019

  4. [9]

    A systematic review on automatic insect detection using deep learning

    Teixeira AC, Ribeiro J, Morais R, Sousa JJ, Cunha A. A systematic review on automatic insect detection using deep learning. Agriculture. 2023;13(3):713

    2023

  5. [10]

    Pest Localization Using YOLOv5 and Classification Based on Quantum Convolutional Network

    Amin J, Anjum MA, Zahra R, Sharif MI, Kadry S, Sevcik L. Pest Localization Using YOLOv5 and Classification Based on Quantum Convolutional Network. Agriculture. 2023;13(3). doi:10.3390/agriculture13030662

    2023 doi

  6. [11]

    Pest-ConFormer: A Hybrid CNN-Transformer Architecture for Large-Scale Multi-Class Crop Pest Recognition

    Fang M, Tan Z, Tang Y, Chen W, Huang H, Dananjayan S, et al. Pest-ConFormer: A Hybrid CNN-Transformer Architecture for Large-Scale Multi-Class Crop Pest Recognition. Expert Systems with Applications. 2024;255:124833. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2024.124833

    2024

  7. [13]

    YOLOv7-PSAFP: Crop pest and disease detection based on improved YOLOv7

    Du L, Zhu J, Liu M, Wang L. YOLOv7-PSAFP: Crop pest and disease detection based on improved YOLOv7. IET Image Processing. 2025;19(1):e13304. doi:https://doi.org/10.1049/ipr2.13304

    2025 doi

  8. [15]

    Pest detection and classification in peanut crops using CNN, MFO, and EViTA algorithms

    Venkatasaichandrakanthand P, Iyapparaja M. Pest detection and classification in peanut crops using CNN, MFO, and EViTA algorithms. IEEE Access. 2023;11:54045–54057

    2023

  9. [16]

    Pest Detection and Classification in Peanut Crops Using CNN and EViTA Algorithms

    Nagalakshmi P, Iyapparaja M. Pest Detection and Classification in Peanut Crops Using CNN and EViTA Algorithms. International Journal of Innovative Research in Engineering. 2024;11(2):45–57

    2024

  10. [18]

    Tea insect pests classification based on artificial neural networks

    Samanta R, Ghosh I. Tea insect pests classification based on artificial neural networks. International Journal of Computer Engineering Science (IJCES). 2012;2(6):1–13

    2012

  11. [19]

    Crop pest detection by three-scale convolutional neural network with attention

    Wang X, Zhang S, Wang X, Xu C. Crop pest detection by three-scale convolutional neural network with attention. Plos one. 2023;18(6):e0276456

    2023

  12. [20]

    An effective pyramid neural network based on graph-related attentions structure for fine-grained disease and pest identification in intelligent agriculture

    Lin S, Xiu Y, Kong J, Yang C, Zhao C. An effective pyramid neural network based on graph-related attentions structure for fine-grained disease and pest identification in intelligent agriculture. Agriculture. 2023;13(3):567

    2023

  13. [21]

    Attention Embedding ResNet for Pest Classification

    Wu J, Liang S, Bi N, Tan J. Attention Embedding ResNet for Pest Classification. In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition and Artificial Intelligence. Springer; 2022. p. 591–602

    2022

  14. [22]

    Plant disease and insect pest identification based on vision transformer

    Li H, Li S, Yu J, Han Y, Dong A. Plant disease and insect pest identification based on vision transformer. In: International conference on internet of things and machine learning (IoTML 2021). vol. 12174. SPIE; 2022. p. 194–201

    2021

  15. [23]

    GA-GhostNet: A Lightweight CNN Model for Identifying Pests and Diseases Using a Gated Multi-Scale Coordinate Attention Mechanism

    Xiao Y, Wu J, Ma C. GA-GhostNet: A Lightweight CNN Model for Identifying Pests and Diseases Using a Gated Multi-Scale Coordinate Attention Mechanism. Engineering Letters. 2024;32(7)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Self-supervised learning improves classification of agriculturally important insect pests in plants

    Kar S, Nagasubramanian K, Elango D, Carroll M, Abel C, Nair A, et al. Self-supervised learning improves classification of agriculturally important insect pests in plants. The Plant Phenome Journal. 2023;6:e20079. doi:10.1002/ppj2.20079

    2023 doi

  17. [25]

    Detection of rice pests based on self-attention mechanism and multi-scale feature fusion

    Hu Y, Deng X, Lan Y, Chen X, Long Y, Liu C. Detection of rice pests based on self-attention mechanism and multi-scale feature fusion. Insects. 2023;14(3):280

    2023

  18. [26]

    Using a hybrid convolutional neural network with a transformer model for tomato leaf disease detection

    Chen Z, Wang G, Lv T, Zhang X. Using a hybrid convolutional neural network with a transformer model for tomato leaf disease detection. Agronomy. 2024;14(4):673

    2024

  19. [27]

    An Efficient Insect Pest Classification Using Multiple Convolutional Neural Network Based Models; 2021

    Ung HT, Ung HQ, Nguyen BT. An Efficient Insect Pest Classification Using Multiple Convolutional Neural Network Based Models; 2021. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.12189

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Classification Accuracy Improvement for Small-Size Citrus Pests and Diseases Using Bridge Connections in Deep Neural Networks

    Xing S, Lee M. Classification Accuracy Improvement for Small-Size Citrus Pests and Diseases Using Bridge Connections in Deep Neural Networks. Sensors. 2020;20(17). doi:10.3390/s20174992

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Red Palm Weevil Detection in Date Palm Using Temporal UA V Imagery

    Delalieux S, Hardy T, Ferry M, Gomez S, Kooistra L, Culman M, et al. Red Palm Weevil Detection in Date Palm Using Temporal UA V Imagery. Remote Sensing. 2023;15(5). doi:10.3390/rs15051380

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Exploring Deep Ensemble Model for Insect and Pest Detection from Images

    Anwar Z, Masood S. Exploring Deep Ensemble Model for Insect and Pest Detection from Images. Procedia Computer Science. 2023;218:2328–2337. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2023.01.208

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    In: Early detection of locust swarms using deep learning

    Kumar KS, Abdul Rahman A. In: Early detection of locust swarms using deep learning. Springer; 2020. p. 303–310

    2020

  24. [32]

    Crop pest classification with a genetic algorithm-based weighted ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks

    Ayan E, Erbay H. Crop pest classification with a genetic algorithm-based weighted ensemble of deep convolutional neural networks. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2020;179:105809. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2020.105809

    2020

  25. [33]

    EfficientNetV2 Model for Plant Disease Classification and Pest Recognition

    Devi RSS, Kumar VR V, Sivakumar P. EfficientNetV2 Model for Plant Disease Classification and Pest Recognition. Computer Systems Science and Engineering. 2023;45(2):2249–2263. doi:10.32604/csse.2023.032231

    2023

  26. [34]

    Automatic classification of parasitized fruit fly pupae from X-ray images by convolutional neural networks

    Marinho RA, et al. Automatic classification of parasitized fruit fly pupae from X-ray images by convolutional neural networks. Ecological Informatics. 2023;78:102382. doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2023.102382

    2023

  27. [35]

    Crop pest image recognition based on the improved ViT method

    Fu X, Ma Q, Yang F, Zhang C, Xiaolong Z, Chang F, et al. Crop pest image recognition based on the improved ViT method. Information Processing in Agriculture. 2023;doi:10.1016/j.inpa.2023.02.007. August 21, 2025 24/26

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Detecting Tea Tree Pests in Complex Backgrounds Using a Hybrid Architecture Guided by Transformers and Multi-Scale Attention Mechanism

    Zhan Y, Li X, Wang H. Detecting Tea Tree Pests in Complex Backgrounds Using a Hybrid Architecture Guided by Transformers and Multi-Scale Attention Mechanism. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2023;205:107476. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2023.107476

    2023

  29. [37]

    Efficient agricultural pest classification using vision transformer with hybrid pooled multihead attention

    Saranya T, Deisy C, Sridevi S. Efficient agricultural pest classification using vision transformer with hybrid pooled multihead attention. Computers in Biology and Medicine. 2024;177:108584. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108584

    2024

  30. [38]

    A New Hybrid ConvViT Model for Dangerous Farm Insect Detection

    Utku A, Kaya M, Canbay Y. A New Hybrid ConvViT Model for Dangerous Farm Insect Detection. Applied Sciences. 2025;15(5):2518. doi:10.3390/app15052518

    2025 doi

  31. [40]

    YOLOv5-Based Rice Disease and Pest Recognition Design

    Yu W, Zhang L. YOLOv5-Based Rice Disease and Pest Recognition Design. In: Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Engineering; 2023. p. 112–117. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3711129.3711180

    2023

  32. [41]

    Improving long-tailed pest classification using diffusion model-based data augmentation

    Jiao Y, et al. Improving long-tailed pest classification using diffusion model-based data augmentation. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2022;210:107383. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2023.107383

    2022

  33. [42]

    GAN-based semi-automated augmentation online tool for agricultural pest detection: A case study on whiteflies

    Karam C, Awad M, Abou Jawdah Y, Ezzeddine N, Fardoun A. GAN-based semi-automated augmentation online tool for agricultural pest detection: A case study on whiteflies. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;13:813050. doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.813050

    2022

  34. [43]

    Pest Identification and Control using Deep Learning and Augmented Reality

    Soni A, et al. Pest Identification and Control using Deep Learning and Augmented Reality. International Journal of Computer Applications. 2022;182(42):25–30

    2022

  35. [44]

    Field Crop Insect Recognition Based on Multiple Feature Fusion

    Xie C, Wang R, Zhang J, Chen P, Dong W, Li R, et al. Field Crop Insect Recognition Based on Multiple Feature Fusion. Sensors. 2015;15(4):8665–8690. doi:10.3390/s150408665

    2015 doi

  36. [45]

    Deep learning-based identification of insect species for field crop pest management

    Xie C, Wang R, Zhang J, Chen P, Dong W, Li R, et al. Deep learning-based identification of insect species for field crop pest management. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2018;152:484–491. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2018.07.043

    2018 doi

  37. [46]

    An open access repository of images on plant health to enable the development of mobile disease diagnostics

    Hughes DP, Salath´ e M. An open access repository of images on plant health to enable the development of mobile disease diagnostics. arXiv preprint arXiv:151108060. 2015

    2015

  38. [47]

    Rice insect pest recognition and classification using an SVM-based expert system

    Liu J, Wang R, Zhang B, Chen H, Wu J, Wang Q, et al. Rice insect pest recognition and classification using an SVM-based expert system. Biosystems Engineering. 2016;144:29–41. doi:10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.01.008

    2016 doi

  39. [48]

    Paddy Doctor: Paddy Pest & Disease Dataset; 2022

    Contributor(s) K. Paddy Doctor: Paddy Pest & Disease Dataset; 2022

    2022

  40. [49]

    AgriPest: A Large-Scale Domain-Specific Benchmark Dataset for Practical Agricultural Pest Detection in the Wild

    Wang R, Liu L, Xie C, Yang P, Li R, Zhou M. AgriPest: A Large-Scale Domain-Specific Benchmark Dataset for Practical Agricultural Pest Detection in the Wild. Sensors. 2021;21(5):1601. doi:10.3390/s21051601

    2021 doi

  41. [50]

    A Deep-Learning-Based Detection Method for Small Target Tomato Pests in Insect Traps

    Wang S, Chen D, Xiang J, Zhang C. A Deep-Learning-Based Detection Method for Small Target Tomato Pests in Insect Traps. Agronomy. 2024;14(12):2887. doi:10.3390/agronomy14122887

    2024 doi

  42. [51]

    A model for detecting tiny and very tiny pests in cotton fields based on super-resolution reconstruction

    Yang S, Zhou G, Feng Y, Zhang J, Jia Z. A model for detecting tiny and very tiny pests in cotton fields based on super-resolution reconstruction. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2024;15:1416940. doi:10.3389/fpls.2024.1416940

    2024

  43. [52]

    A Lightweight YOLOv3-Based Detector for Real-Time Pest Detection on Edge Devices

    Cheng Y, Li L, Huang J, Wang W, Lin Z. A Lightweight YOLOv3-Based Detector for Real-Time Pest Detection on Edge Devices. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2022;198:107016. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107016

    2022

  44. [53]

    Lightweight YOLOv8 Model for Pest Detection with Low Power Consumption

    Jiang Y, Chen Y. Lightweight YOLOv8 Model for Pest Detection with Low Power Consumption. Precision Agriculture. 2024

    2024

  45. [54]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

    Hinton G, Vinyals O, Dean J. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. In: NIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop; 2015.Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.02531. August 21, 2025 25/26

    2015 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review

    Parisi GI, Kemker R, Part JL, Kanan C, Wermter S. Continual lifelong learning with neural networks: A review. Neural Networks. 2019;113:54–71. doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2019.01.012

    2019 doi

  47. [56]

    Few-shot cross-domain adaptation for plant disease identification

    Nawaz MS, Usman M, Islam R, Ozturk I, Rehman Au. Few-shot cross-domain adaptation for plant disease identification. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2022;203:107392. doi:10.1016/j.compag.2022.107392. August 21, 2025 26/26

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.