Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

Self-supervised learning predicts plant growth trajectories from multi-modal industrial greenhouse data

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

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

Pith's one-line read HINTS shows that self-supervised learning on routine robot-collected environmental and depth-camera data forecasts harvest height and mass five days in advance, beating rolling genotype-specific averages by roughly 30–68%.

desk verdict A real industrial deployment with a substantial dataset, but the headline improvement over rolling averages is likely inflated by an information-level mismatch, and the training objective has a fixable prior inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.06336 v1 pith:V4U76PIF submitted 2025-07-08 q-bio.QM cs.LGcs.RO

Adam J Riesselman , Evan M Cofer , Therese LaRue , Wim Meeussen This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QMcs.LGcs.RO
keywords self-supervisedlearninggrowthtrajectoryforecastinghydroponiclettuceroboticphenotypingenvironmentalsensingLSTMharvestmasspredictioncontrolledenvironmentagriculture
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 paper tries to establish that a commercial greenhouse can turn its existing robotic monitoring stream—daily depth-camera height readings, environmental logs, and harvest weights—into a growth forecaster without manual annotation. The authors build HINTS, a self-supervised LSTM that, at any day in a tray's life, reads everything observed so far and outputs the parameters of a parametric growth curve, which then projects height and mass at harvest. On 1,989 lettuce trays harvested in April 2025, HINTS beats 10-, 30-, and 90-day rolling genotype-specific averages by about 30%, 46%, and 67% in average absolute error for harvest height, and by similar margins for harvest mass. The reason to care is operational: five-day-ahead yield forecasts made this way could support fulfillment planning and reduce waste in controlled-environment agriculture.

What carries the argument

The central object is HINTS, a three-layer residual LSTM that maps each tray's history to growth-curve parameters. Height follows the assumed identity $\hat{h}_d = \beta_{\mathrm{gr}} \, \operatorname{softplus}(\mathrm{age}_d - \beta_{\mathrm{lag}})$, with $\beta_{\mathrm{lag}}$ the seedling lag and $\beta_{\mathrm{gr}}$ the growth rate; harvest mass is $\hat{m}_D = \sum_{j=1}^{k} \beta_{\mathrm{mass},d,j} I_j$, a canopy-density-weighted sum over leaf-length intervals. At every time step the LSTM ingests daily temperature and humidity summaries, sunlight and LED light integrals, height medians and deciles, and a genotype embedding, and emits nonnegative parameters through a softplus output. The objective is end-to-end differentiable, pairing robust Pseudo-Huber losses for height and mass with L1 priors that keep early predictions stable when few or no height observations exist.

What would settle it

Run the same 1,989 April 2025 trays through a per-tray extrapolation baseline that uses only the most recent seven daily median heights (say, a linear or exponential fit) and compare five-day harvest height and mass average absolute error with HINTS; if the simple extrapolation matches or beats HINTS, the claimed superiority is not coming from the learned environment-to-parameter mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the plants' own measured growth provides enough self-supervision for a neural model to generate the full growth trajectory from partial observations. HINTS links environmental and phenotypic inputs to key outcomes like growth rates and harvest mass by estimating growth parameters at each observed day, then using those parameters to project future height and harvest mass. Evaluated at the operational planning horizon of five days before harvest, the model outperforms every N-day rolling average parameter baseline: harvest height average absolute error drops by 29.92%, 45.92%, and 67.37% relative to the 10-, 30-, and 90-day baselines, and harvest mass error drops by 33.93%, 45.99%, and 67.98%. The authors read these results as demonstrating that robotic automation plus self-supervised deep learning can deliver actionable agronomic predictions at industrial scale.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single two-parameter softplus height curve and a leaf-length-times-density mass law describe every tray in the facility; if the true growth of a variety or environment departs from those shapes, HINTS will carry that misspecification into its forecasts no matter how well the network fits.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, a greenhouse operator can produce five-day-ahead harvest height and mass forecasts for every tray from data the robots already collect, with no manual labeling step.
  • The explicit growth parameters (lag, growth rate, and canopy density) let an operator see why a prediction is high or low, not just what the prediction is.
  • Because the labels are the plants' own physical measurements, the same training recipe can be re-run whenever new varieties, seasons, or facility layouts change, as long as the monitoring pipeline stays in place.
  • The forecast error reduction over rolling averages means planning decisions that currently rely on history can instead incorporate each tray's current condition, which should matter most when the environment departs from recent norms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: the comparison in the paper isolates the full HINTS model against historical averages, not against an LSTM that receives only the tray's own height history; an ablation removing environment and genotype inputs would reveal how much of the 30–68% gain comes from environmental conditioning rather than from simply tracking each tray's early trajectory.
  • Editorial extension: because the height curve is fixed to a softplus shape, the model is likely to be most accurate for crops harvested before the growth plateau and would need revalidation on crops grown to maturity or under stress that changes canopy architecture.
  • Editorial extension: the April 2025 evaluation is a single-facility, single-month test; a stronger test of generality would be to evaluate the same trained model on an unseen season or a different hydroponic facility, which the paper does not report.
  • Editorial extension: the priors on the lag and growth-rate parameters encode facility-specific experience; if those priors are wrong for a new variety, early predictions could degrade until enough height observations accumulate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces HINTS, an LSTM-based model that maps environmental, phenotypic, and genotypic observations from a robotic hydroponic facility into parameters of a parametric growth curve (seedling lag, growth rate, and canopy density), and then projects these parameters forward to predict harvest height and harvest mass. The model is trained with a multi-term objective combining Pseudo-Huber losses on height and mass with L1 priors on the growth parameters. Evaluation is performed on 1,989 lettuce trays harvested in April 2025, comparing HINTS against rolling N-day genotype-specific historical parameter averages (N = 10, 30, 90) and reporting substantial mean absolute error reductions (29.92% to 67.98%). The central claim is that the learned mapping from partial observations to growth-curve parameters yields substantially better harvest-time forecasts than simple historical baselines, while retaining interpretability through biologically meaningful parameters.

Significance. If the result is robust, the paper provides a useful demonstration that self-supervised neural models, trained on large-scale robotic phenotyping data, can improve operational harvest forecasts in controlled-environment agriculture. The real-world scale of the dataset (over 28,000 harvested trays) and the explicit, interpretable parameterization of growth are concrete strengths. The paper also offers a reproducible loss formulation in the appendix, which is a plus. However, the significance is currently tempered by the evaluation design: the baseline is informationally disadvantaged, and the comparison lacks statistical validation. The core claim of a large improvement over historical rolling averages is therefore not yet fully supported, although the underlying approach is plausible and the direction is valuable for both agronomic research and applied greenhouse operations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 4, Figure 3] The reported 29.92% to 67.98% improvements over rolling averages likely overstate forecasting skill because the baseline is denied the current tray's partial observations. HINTS uses the current tray's height history and environment through the LSTM (Eq. 6) and then projects through the growth curve, whereas the baseline applies only historical genotype-specific average parameters. This information-level mismatch conflates trajectory extrapolation from current observations with genuine out-of-sample forecast improvement. To support the headline claim, the authors should include a matched baseline that receives the same observed height history (e.g., a baseline that uses the current tray's latest height with historically averaged lag/rate parameters), and also a baseline that uses purely environmental inputs without height features, to separate the contributions of the LSTM, the current observations, and the parametric projection.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 3] No error bars, confidence intervals, or statistical tests are reported for the central comparison. The bar chart in Figure 3 shows single point estimates, so the reader cannot assess whether the improvements are consistent across the 1,989 trays, across genotypes, or across repeated random initializations. The authors should provide bootstrap or per-tray error distributions, and ideally a paired test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank on per-tray absolute errors). Additionally, reporting performance across multiple harvest periods would establish that the improvement is not specific to one April 2025 cohort.
  3. [Appendix A.2, Eqs. 15-17 and Section 3.5] There is an internal inconsistency in the prior specification. Section 3.5 states that all generated growth parameters are constrained to be positive through a softplus transformation, yet the L1 priors in Appendix A.2 use prior means of -0.5 for growth rate (Eq. 16) and -2 for canopy density (Eq. 17). These priors pull the unconstrained pre-softplus values toward negative numbers, which corresponds to impossible parameter values after the softplus. This can bias the trained model and is especially problematic for the growth-rate parameter, where negative prior means contradict the biological interpretation of the parameter. The authors should either set positive prior means (e.g., on the raw parameter scale) or use priors defined on the positive constrained scale (e.g., log-normal), and justify the choice.
  4. [Section 3.5, Eq. 8 and Section 3.3, Eq. 4] The mass prediction formulation is ambiguous and needs clarification. Section 3.3 defines harvest mass as the product of leaf length and a scalar density parameter (Eq. 4), but Section 3.5 introduces a vector of canopy density parameters with indicators I based on 'the median harvested leaf length per tray ldt' (Eq. 8). It is not clear how ldt is obtained at intermediate day d before harvest, nor how the indicators are computed if cut height is not input into the model. Without a precise definition of I and the mapping from predicted height to leaf length, the mass mechanism is not reproducible. This ambiguity directly affects the central 'harvest mass' claim and should be resolved with a clear generative description.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1] The sentence 'an 3000 m2 sized facility' should read 'a 3000 m2 facility.' Also, the reported data counts (657,663 growing days, 639,352 phenotypic points, 28,410 trays) are not obviously consistent; please clarify the relationship (e.g., number of trays times cycle length).
  2. [Section 3.4, Eq. 5] The notation P(H0:D, mD|A0:D, phi) is not complete as a probability statement; the distribution over the observations is not specified. Consider writing the observation model explicitly, including the noise distribution.
  3. [Section 3.6] The appendix describes the loss weights and LSTM architecture, but the main text does not state how the training/validation split was performed or whether the evaluation set (April 2025 trays) was held out during training. Please add this information, as it is essential for interpreting the reported performance.
  4. [Section 4] The figure caption 'Absolute error comparison of HINTS and a baseline using N-day rolling average parameters' does not mention that the error values are means; please specify whether the bars represent mean absolute error across all trays or across some other aggregation, and include units and confidence intervals.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: HINTS's harvest predictions are evaluated against independently measured outcomes; the baseline asymmetry and appendix prior inconsistency are correctness concerns, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. HINTS maps partial observations (E0:d, H~0:d, g) through an LSTM to growth-curve parameters, then projects those parameters forward via Eq. 7; the reported errors compare the projected harvest height and mass against independently weighed and measured harvest outcomes on 1989 April-2025 trays. The target is not used to define either the model output or the evaluation metric: the softplus curve (Eq. 1) and density parameter (Eq. 4) are parametric modeling assumptions, and the LSTM's conditioning on the same tray's earlier heights is ordinary conditional forecasting, not bootstrapping the answer. The rolling-average baseline is denied the current tray's observations, so the headline improvement may overstate forecasting skill, but this is an experimental-design limitation rather than an equivalence-by-construction; nothing in the equations forces HINTS's numerical advantage. Self-citations (Meeussen et al. 2021; 2024; Riesselman & Meeussen 2023) support the robotic data-collection and environmental-imputation pipeline as inputs, not the predictive claim, and are therefore not load-bearing. The appendix's negative prior means (Eqs. 16-17) are inconsistent with the softplus positivity constraint, but that is an internal correctness/implementation issue, not circularity. No circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a handful of learned parameters (growth curve coefficients, LSTM weights, and sun correction) and on strong structural assumptions about the growth curve and canopy density. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; the model is a standard supervised architecture applied to a proprietary dataset.

free parameters (6)
  • beta_lag (seedling lag) = per tray, learned; prior mean 12
    Defines the lag phase in Eq. (1); estimated jointly by the LSTM for each tray.
  • beta_gr (growth rate) = per tray, learned; prior mean -0.5
    Growth rate parameter in Eq. (1); estimated by the LSTM.
  • beta_mass (canopy density) = per tray, learned; prior mean -2
    Maps leaf length to mass in Eq. (4); estimated by the LSTM.
  • Sun elevation correction beta = learned
    In Eq. (2), regresses out sun elevation effect on height.
  • LSTM hyperparameters = embedding 128, 3 layers, dropout 0.05, lr 0.001
    Architecture choices in Section 3.6, chosen by hand.
  • Prior loss weights = 0.01, 0.1, 0.01, 0.1 (embed, density, lag, growth)
    Weights in Appendix A.2, chosen by hand to balance losses.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Height follows a two-parameter softplus curve with no plateau before harvest (Eq. 1).
    Section 3.2; if the true growth is sigmoidal or cultivar-specific, the fixed curve biases forecasts.
  • domain assumption Canopy density is isotropic and constant across the lifecycle (Eq. 4).
    Section 3.3; the paper explicitly states this assumption, and it is used to predict harvest mass from leaf length.
  • domain assumption The LSTM can represent the mapping from partial sequences to growth parameters (Eq. 6).
    No expressivity or identifiability proof is given; relies on standard deep learning practice.
  • domain assumption The imputed sunlight/LED intensity data are accurate (Riesselman & Meeussen, 2023).
    Environmental features E include imputed light values; if imputation is biased, predictions inherit the bias.
  • domain assumption The April 2025 test trays are representative of the training distribution.
    No domain shift analysis is provided; seasonal or operational changes could weaken the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-supervised learning predicts plant growth trajectories from multi-modal industrial greenhouse data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V4U76PIF

@misc{pith2026250706336,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-supervised learning predicts plant growth trajectories from multi-modal industrial greenhouse data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V4U76PIF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.06336}
}
read the original abstract

Quantifying organism-level phenotypes, such as growth dynamics and biomass accumulation, is fundamental to understanding agronomic traits and optimizing crop production. However, quality growing data of plants at scale is difficult to generate. Here we use a mobile robotic platform to capture high-resolution environmental sensing and phenotyping measurements of a large-scale hydroponic leafy greens system. We describe a self-supervised modeling approach to build a map from observed growing data to the entire plant growth trajectory. We demonstrate our approach by forecasting future plant height and harvest mass of crops in this system. This approach represents a significant advance in combining robotic automation and machine learning, as well as providing actionable insights for agronomic research and operational efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.06336 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Top: Robots and sensors collect data of leafy greens grown hydroponically: left logs environment (temperature, light, humidity), and right captures phenotype (height over time). Bot￾tom: The entire trajectory of growth is generated using currently observed environment, phenotype, and genotype data. high-dimensional environmental and phenotypic data across thousands of growing trays daily. Leveraging this comprehensi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Phenotypic observations and growth parameterization of a harvested growing tray. βlag and βgr map plant age (aged to estimated height. Harvest mass mD is estimated from the leaf length at harvest and βmass. point; missing height data are masked with zeros ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Absolute error comparison of HINTS and a baseline using N-day rolling average parameters. Performance is evaluated using 1, 989 lettuce growing trays formed the baseline predictions for harvest mass (g) by 33.93%, 45.99%, and 67.98% respectively. This demon￾strates HINTS’s ability to successfully recover growth dy￾namics and harvest characteristics by combining partial growth trajectories with environmental features… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A view of a hydroponic leafy greens growspace. A.2. Detailed Loss Function Formulation The model’s objective function consists of six distinct terms, with loss weights applied to the prior terms as follows: L = Lheight + Lmass + 0.01 · Lembed + 0.1 · Ldensity + 0.01 · …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Kim, S

    Abebe, A. M., Kim, Y., Kim, J., Kim, S. L., and Baek, J. Image-based high-throughput phenotyping in horticultural crops. Plants, 12 0 (10): 0 2061, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Sq-100x-ss original quantum sensor

    Apogee Instruments . Sq-100x-ss original quantum sensor. https://www.apogeeinstruments.com/sq-100x-ss-original-quantum-sensor/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-12

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Robotic technologies for high-throughput plant phenotyping: Contemporary reviews and future perspectives

    Atefi, A., Ge, Y., Pitla, S., and Schnable, J. Robotic technologies for high-throughput plant phenotyping: Contemporary reviews and future perspectives. Frontiers in plant science, 12: 0 611940, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    xlstm: Extended long short-term memory

    Beck, M., P \"o ppel, K., Spanring, M., Auer, A., Prudnikova, O., Kopp, M., Klambauer, G., Brandstetter, J., and Hochreiter, S. xlstm: Extended long short-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04517, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Hydroponic lettuce handbook

    Brechner, M., Both, A., and Staff, C. Hydroponic lettuce handbook. Cornell Controlled Environment Agriculture, 834: 0 504--509, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    G., Ku, J., Poli, M., Brockman, G., Chang, D., Gonzalez, G

    Brixi, G., Durrant, M. G., Ku, J., Poli, M., Brockman, G., Chang, D., Gonzalez, G. A., King, S. H., Li, D. B., Merchant, A. T., et al. Genome modeling and design across all domains of life with evo 2. BioRxiv, pp.\ 2025--02, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Deterministic edge-preserving regularization in computed imaging

    Charbonnier, P., Blanc-F \'e raud, L., Aubert, G., and Barlaud, M. Deterministic edge-preserving regularization in computed imaging. IEEE Transactions on image processing, 6 0 (2): 0 298--311, 1997

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    de R \'e aumur, R. Observation du thermometer, faites \`a paris pendant l’ann \'e e 1735, compares avec celles qui ont \'e t \'e faites sous la ligne, \`a l’isle de france, \`a alger et en quelques-unes de nos isles de l’am \'e rique. M \'e moires de l’Acad \'e mie des Sciences de Paris (1735) , 1735

    work page

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    M., Kraus, O., Victors, M., Arumugam, L., Vuggumudi, K., Urbanik, J., Hansen, K., Celik, S., Cernek, N., Jagannathan, G., et al

    Fay, M. M., Kraus, O., Victors, M., Arumugam, L., Vuggumudi, K., Urbanik, J., Hansen, K., Celik, S., Cernek, N., Jagannathan, G., et al. Rxrx3: Phenomics map of biology. Biorxiv, pp.\ 2023--02, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    L., Boote, K

    Hatfield, J. L., Boote, K. J., Kimball, B. A., Ziska, L., Izaurralde, R. C., Ort, D., Thomson, A. M., and Wolfe, D. Climate impacts on agriculture: implications for crop production. Agronomy journal, 103 0 (2): 0 351--370, 2011

    2011

  3. [11]

    and Schmidhuber, J

    Hochreiter, S. and Schmidhuber, J. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, 9 0 (8): 0 1735--1780, 1997

    1997

  4. [12]

    Plant growth curves

    Hunt, R. Plant growth curves. The functional approach to plant growth analysis. 1982

    1982

  5. [13]

    Intel® realsense™ depth camera d455

    Intel Corporation . Intel® realsense™ depth camera d455. https://www.intelrealsense.com/depth-camera-d455/. Accessed: 2025-05-12

    2025

  6. [14]

    High-throughput plant phenotyping platform (ht3p) as a novel tool for estimating agronomic traits from the lab to the field

    Li, D., Quan, C., Song, Z., Li, X., Yu, G., Li, C., and Muhammad, A. High-throughput plant phenotyping platform (ht3p) as a novel tool for estimating agronomic traits from the lab to the field. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 8: 0 623705, 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Self-supervised learning: Generative or contrastive

    Liu, X., Zhang, F., Hou, Z., Mian, L., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., and Tang, J. Self-supervised learning: Generative or contrastive. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering, 35 0 (1): 0 857--876, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    B., Jordan, M

    Lopez, R., Regier, J., Cole, M. B., Jordan, M. I., and Yosef, N. Deep generative modeling for single-cell transcriptomics. Nature methods, 15 0 (12): 0 1053--1058, 2018

    2018

  9. [17]

    and Hutter, F

    Loshchilov, I. and Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    X., Kraus, O

    Lu, A. X., Kraus, O. Z., Cooper, S., and Moses, A. M. Learning unsupervised feature representations for single cell microscopy images with paired cell inpainting. PLoS computational biology, 15 0 (9): 0 e1007348, 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    Grow method and system, August 26 2021

    Meeussen, W., Marder-Eppstein, E., and Boenig, A. Grow method and system, August 26 2021. US Patent App. 17/182,214

    2021

  12. [20]

    Grow space integration for mobile robots, October 31 2024

    Meeussen, W., Wirth, C., Riesselman, A., Jones, E., and LaRue, T. Grow space integration for mobile robots, October 31 2024. US Patent App. 18/771,643

    2024

  13. [21]

    The illusion of state in state-space models

    Merrill, W., Petty, J., and Sabharwal, A. The illusion of state in state-space models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.08819, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Using growing degree days to predict plant stages

    Miller, P., Lanier, W., and Brandt, S. Using growing degree days to predict plant stages. Ag/Extension Communications Coordinator, Communications Services, Montana State University-Bozeman, Bozeman, MO, 59717 0 (406): 0 994--2721, 2001

    2001

  15. [23]

    Machine learning for functional protein design

    Notin, P., Rollins, N., Gal, Y., Sander, C., and Marks, D. Machine learning for functional protein design. Nature biotechnology, 42 0 (2): 0 216--228, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    and Meeussen, W

    Riesselman, A. and Meeussen, W. High-resolution environmental sensor imputation using machine learning, November 30 2023. US Patent App. 18/325,742

    2023

  17. [25]

    T., and Uddin, M

    Sharmin, S., Hossan, M. T., and Uddin, M. S. A review of machine learning approaches for predicting lettuce yield in hydroponic systems. Smart Agricultural Technology, pp.\ 100925, 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    M., Stanitsas, P., Ranu, N., Ewer, A., Mancuso, J

    Sivanandan, S., Leitmann, B., Lubeck, E., Sultan, M. M., Stanitsas, P., Ranu, N., Ewer, A., Mancuso, J. E., Phillips, Z. F., Kim, A., et al. A pooled cell painting crispr screening platform enables de novo inference of gene function by self-supervised deep learning. bioRxiv, p...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence

    Wang, H., Fu, T., Du, Y., Gao, W., Huang, K., Liu, Z., Chandak, P., Liu, S., Van Katwyk, P., Deac, A., et al. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence. Nature, 620 0 (7972): 0 47--60, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    S., Varshney, R

    Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Li, H., Zheng, H., Zhang, J., Olsen, M. S., Varshney, R. K., Prasanna, B. M., and Qian, Q. Smart breeding driven by big data, artificial intelligence, and integrated genomic-enviromic prediction. Molecular Plant, 15 0 (11): 0 1664--1695, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

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