Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Augment to Segment: Tackling Pixel-Level Imbalance in Wheat Disease and Pest Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A targeted pasting augmentation, Random Projected Copy-and-Paste, raises insect-damage segmentation accuracy by several IoU points across eight segmentation backbones while keeping other classes stable.

desk verdict A plausible rare-class augmentation recipe for wheat disease segmentation, but the headline 'consistently improves' rests on single-run numbers and test-set tuning. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09961 v1 pith:UX5XYLNZ submitted 2025-09-12 cs.CV

Tianqi Wei , Xin Yu , Zhi Chen , Scott Chapman , Zi Huang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semanticsegmentationlong-taildistributiondataaugmentationcopy-pastewheatdiseaseinsectdamageclassimbalancerandomprojection
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 claims that the poor segmentation of rare insect-damage pixels in wheat images can be fixed by a simple augmentation rather than by changing the model. It extracts real insect-damage patches from annotated training images, transforms each patch by random rotation and scaling, and pastes it onto a healthy leaf region in another training image. A random projection filter applied only to the pasted region blends textures and reduces artifacts. Experiments across eight CNN and transformer segmentation models show consistent gains in insect-damage IoU (roughly 2.8–4.3 points) with no loss on healthy-leaf and lesion classes. If correct, the method offers a model-agnostic way to handle extreme pixel imbalance in agricultural segmentation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the RPCP augmentation pipeline: (1) category-aware patch extraction crops insect-damage regions from source images; (2) spatially constrained pasting places randomly rotated and scaled copies onto healthy leaf regions, avoiding overlap with existing lesions; (3) a localized random projection filter — a convolution with random Gaussian weights applied only inside the pasted mask and blended with coefficient α — refines local texture. This filter is what distinguishes RPCP from plain copy-paste; the ablations show it adds about another 2.6 IoU points on the rare class beyond copy-paste alone.

What would settle it

A concrete test: apply RPCP to a wheat dataset collected under different lighting or growth stages, and check whether insect-damage IoU still improves; or compute a distribution-distance metric between augmented patches and real held-out insect-damage patches — if the augmented patches do not overlap the real distribution even qualitatively, the gains are unlikely to transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Random Projected Copy-and-Paste (RPCP) is a model-agnostic augmentation that consistently improves rare-class segmentation performance on the STB wheat dataset. The authors report that adding RPCP raises insect-damage IoU by +2.81 to +4.28 percentage points across eight backbones, with the largest gains on CCNet and SegFormer, while common-class IoU changes by less than a point and mIoU improves in most models. The augmentation works by copying real insect-damage patches, applying random geometric transformations, pasting them into healthy regions, and then applying a Gaussian random-convolution filter to the pasted area. The best configuration uses one pasted patch

Load-bearing premise

The whole method works only if pasting a real insect-damage patch onto a healthy leaf and blurring it with random noise produces training images that look like real insect damage to the model; the authors' own sensitivity results show performance collapses when the augmentation budget is too large.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If RPCP is correct, any existing segmentation model can be improved on rare classes without architectural changes, requiring only ground-truth masks to mine patches.
  • The consistent gains across CNN and transformer backbones suggest the method is not tied to a specific inductive bias.
  • The reported degradation at high paste counts implies a safe operating range: one to two patches per image, with a small 3×3 random filter.
  • Reducing false positives on the rare class also slightly improves lesion segmentation, since insect damage is no longer mistaken for necrosis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the same recipe should transfer to other long-tailed pixel segmentation tasks where a rare class appears as localized textural regions (e.g., early blight spots, pest eggs), as long as patches come from the real class distribution.
  • The paper does not test the augmented distribution against real field data beyond a t-SNE of RGB pixels; a quantitative distribution-distance check (e.g., FID between synthesized and real damage patches) would tell whether the gains come from filling in the tail or from teaching the model a synthetic texture shortcut.
  • A natural extension would be to let the paste position be chosen by a learned saliency map instead of random placement, which could further reduce distribution mismatch.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Random Projected Copy-and-Paste (RPCP), a data augmentation method for semantic segmentation of wheat foliar disease, targeting the extreme pixel imbalance of the rare insect-damage class. Insect-damage patches are cropped from annotated images, randomly transformed, pasted onto healthy leaf regions while avoiding lesions and existing damage, and then refined with a random projection filter inside the pasted mask (Eqs. 1–3). The method is evaluated on the STB wheat dataset with seven segmentation backbones, comparing each baseline with and without RPCP. The central claim is that RPCP consistently improves insect-damage segmentation by roughly 2.8–4.3 IoU points while maintaining or slightly improving common-class accuracy.

Significance. If the central claim holds, RPCP would be a simple, model-agnostic remedy for extreme pixel-level imbalance in agricultural segmentation, requiring no architectural changes or extra annotations. The paper has genuine strengths: it tests seven backbones spanning CNN and transformer designs, includes a component ablation, reports a five-seed sensitivity study for the number of pasted patches, and provides qualitative and t-SNE evidence that the augmented patches are plausible. However, the quantitative evidence for the main claim is currently not sufficient. The headline comparisons in Table 1 are single-run, no validation protocol is documented, and the hyperparameters appear to be selected on the same test metric used for the headline results. These issues need to be addressed before the consistency and robustness claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] The claim that RPCP 'does not sacrifice' common-class performance and maintains or improves dominant classes is contradicted by entries in Table 1. ConvNeXt w/ RPCP shows Class 2 Acc dropping from 91.57 to 89.09 (−2.48) and mAcc dropping from 91.58 to 91.03 (−0.55); CCNet Class 2 Acc drops by 0.52; PSPNet Class 1 Acc drops by 0.13; SegNeXt Class 1 Acc drops by 0.09. These decreases may be small, but they are inconsistent with the unqualified statement in §4.2 and the abstract. The authors should either quantify the variability of these differences, provide a statistical test, or soften the claim to reflect that common classes are approximately maintained with occasional small decreases.
  2. [§4.2, Table 1 vs §4.4, Table 3] The main results in Table 1 are reported as single numbers per model/config. The only statement about repeated runs appears in §4.4 for the k-sensitivity experiment ('Each experiment is repeated 5 times and averaged'). For a rare class like insect damage, which occupies only a tiny fraction of pixels, run-to-run stochasticity in training and augmentation can easily produce differences of several IoU points. The observed Class 3 gains of +2.81 to +4.28 IoU could therefore be within noise. The authors should report mean ± std over multiple seeds for Table 1, or otherwise demonstrate that the improvements exceed training variability. This is load-bearing for the 'consistently improves' claim.
  3. [§4.4, Tables 3–6] The paper does not describe a validation split or a protocol for selecting the RPCP hyperparameters (k=1, σ=0.20, α=0.8, 3×3 filter). Tables 3–6 are sensitivity studies that appear to use the same evaluation metric and presumably the same test set used for the headline results in Table 1. If the best operating point was selected on the test set, the reported improvements are optimistically biased. The authors should define an explicit validation split, select hyperparameters on it, and then report test-set performance at that fixed operating point, or report results across the full hyperparameter grid to show the gains are not a result of test-set selection.
  4. [§4.4, Table 3] The sensitivity study for the number of pasted patches shows that the method is not robust to the augmentation budget: k=3 yields Class 3 IoU 72.22, below the baseline 72.81, and k=4 drops to 69.23, a substantial degradation. This does not refute the method, but it directly qualifies the word 'consistently' used in §4.2 and the conclusion. The authors should acknowledge this narrow operating window and discuss why k=1 is the appropriate choice beyond a posteriori selection. If possible, they should also evaluate whether the degradation for larger k is consistent across backbones.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (2)–(3), §3.3] The random projection filter is defined as a convolution with Θ ∈ R^{h×w×C×C}, but implementation details are missing: padding, stride, whether the filter is applied per-channel or across channels, and whether the output is renormalized to preserve intensity statistics. These details affect reproducibility and the visual plausibility of the augmented samples.
  2. [§4.1, Datasets] The text says the STB dataset was 'introduced by Boulent et al. [48]', but reference [48] is Zenkl et al. Please correct the citation or the author attribution.
  3. [§4.1, Evaluation Metrics] Class-wise pixel accuracy as defined in Eq. (5) is recall, not the usual pixel accuracy. This is acceptable, but the terminology should be clarified to avoid confusion; consider using 'class recall' or 'sensitivity'.
  4. [Table 1] The red/green color coding is not accessible in grayscale or for color-blind readers. Please add explicit +/− signs or arrows to the Δ rows.
  5. [§4.5, Figure 3] The pixel distribution in Fig. 3(a) presumably refers to the training set before and after augmentation. Please state this explicitly, since the test-set distribution is unchanged by construction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claim is an empirical benchmark measurement, not a derivation from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that RPCP improves insect-damage segmentation—is supported by direct experimental comparisons on the external STB dataset across multiple backbones. The method is defined by explicit equations (Eq. 1–3) that construct augmented images; these equations do not encode the reported IoU improvements. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is derived from a self-citation. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., CF-PRNet, PlantSeg, Snap and Diagnose) are contextual prior work and are not load-bearing for the augmentation claim. The only mild concern is that hyperparameters (k, sigma, alpha, filter size) appear to be selected using the evaluation metric on the same benchmark used for headline results, but this is a standard experimental-protocol issue, not logical circularity. The claim remains an externally falsifiable measurement, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method relies on three domain assumptions about realism and label consistency of augmented samples. It introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. Four hyperparameters are tuned on the evaluation setup, which is the main source of potential optimistic bias.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of pasted patches per image k = 1
    Selected via sensitivity analysis (Table 3); performance drops sharply at k=4 (Class 3 IoU 69.23 vs 75.62), so the gain depends on this hand-tuned value.
  • Random projection filter size (h,w) = 3x3
    Best in Table 4; larger filters progressively hurt, with 9x9 dropping Class 3 IoU to 68.98.
  • Perturbation magnitude sigma = 0.20
    Best in Table 5; sigma=0.30 degrades Class 3 IoU to 70.98.
  • Blending coefficient alpha = 0.8
    Best in Table 6; alpha=1.0 reduces Class 3 IoU to 74.29, showing the result is sensitive to this choice.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Pasted insect-damage patches are semantically label-consistent after random-convolution perturbation.
    Eq. (2)-(3) perturb pixels inside the pasted mask with Gaussian weights; the paper assumes the perturbed texture still belongs to the insect-damage class.
  • domain assumption Insect-damage appearance is context-independent, so pasting onto healthy leaf regions produces realistic data.
    Section 3.2 restricts pasting to healthy regions, assuming damage on healthy leaves is representative; no verification that this matches real co-occurrence patterns.
  • domain assumption STB dataset annotations are correct and complete enough for patch extraction and evaluation.
    The method extracts patches from annotations and evaluates against them; annotation noise would be copied into augmented samples.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Augment to Segment: Tackling Pixel-Level Imbalance in Wheat Disease and Pest Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UX5XYLNZ

@misc{pith2026250909961,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Augment to Segment: Tackling Pixel-Level Imbalance in Wheat Disease and Pest Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UX5XYLNZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09961}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate segmentation of foliar diseases and insect damage in wheat is crucial for effective crop management and disease control. However, the insect damage typically occupies only a tiny fraction of annotated pixels. This extreme pixel-level imbalance poses a significant challenge to the segmentation performance, which can result in overfitting to common classes and insufficient learning of rare classes, thereby impairing overall performance. In this paper, we propose a Random Projected Copy-and-Paste (RPCP) augmentation technique to address the pixel imbalance problem. Specifically, we extract rare insect-damage patches from annotated training images and apply random geometric transformations to simulate variations. The transformed patches are then pasted in appropriate regions while avoiding overlaps with lesions or existing damaged regions. In addition, we apply a random projection filter to the pasted regions, refining local features and ensuring a natural blend with the new background. Experiments show that our method substantially improves segmentation performance on the insect damage class, while maintaining or even slightly enhancing accuracy on other categories. Our results highlight the effectiveness of targeted augmentation in mitigating extreme pixel imbalance, offering a straightforward yet effective solution for agricultural segmentation problems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09961 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed augmentation and refinement pipeline. (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SegNeXt segmentation results with and without RPCP. Red masks denote [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Pixel-level distribution shows the alleviation of class imbalance. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [48]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture232, 109854 (2025)

    Zenkl, R., McDonald, B.A., Walter, A., Anderegg, J.: Towards high throughput in-field detection and quantification of wheat foliar diseases using deep learning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture232, 109854 (2025)

    2025

  2. [1]

    Frontiers in Plant Science15, 1355941 (2024)

    Aldakheel, E.A., Zakariah, M., Alabdalall, A.H.: Detection and identification of plant leaf diseases using yolov4. Frontiers in Plant Science15, 1355941 (2024)

    2024

  3. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587 (2017)

    Chen, L.C., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., Adam, H.: Rethinking atrous convolution for semantic image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05587 (2017)

    arXiv 2017

  4. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Chen, L.C., Zhu, Y., Papandreou, G., Schroff, F., Adam, H.: Encoder-decoder with atrous separable convolution for semantic image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 801–818 (2018)

    2018

  5. [4]

    CVPPA @ ECCV2024 (2024)

    Chen, Z., Wei, T., Zhao, Z., Lim, J.S., Luo, Y., Zhang, H., Yu, X., Chapman, S., Huang, Z.: Cf-prnet: Coarse-to-fine prototype refining network for point cloud completion and reconstruction. CVPPA @ ECCV2024 (2024)

    2024

  6. [5]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Chou, H.P., Chang, S.C., Pan, J.Y., Wei, W., Juan, D.C.: Remix: rebalanced mixup. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 95–110. Springer (2020)

    2020

  7. [6]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Chu, P., Bian, X., Liu, S., Ling, H.: Feature space augmentation for long-tailed data. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 694–710. Springer (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmsegmentation (2020)

    Contributors, M.: MMSegmentation: Openmmlab semantic segmentation toolbox and benchmark. https://github.com/open-mmlab/mmsegmentation (2020)

    2020

Show all 51 references
  1. [8]

    In: Wheat improve- ment: food security in a changing climate, pp

    Erenstein, O., Jaleta, M., Mottaleb, K.A., Sonder, K., Donovan, J., Braun, H.J.: Global trends in wheat production, consumption and trade. In: Wheat improve- ment: food security in a changing climate, pp. 47–66. Springer International Pub- lishing Cham (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Fan, J., Gao, B., Jin, H., Jiang, L.: Ucc: Uncertainty guided cross-head co-training for semi-supervised semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9947–9956 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Fang, H.S., Sun, J., Wang, R., Gou, M., Li, Y.L., Lu, C.: Instaboost: Boosting instance segmentation via probability map guided copy-pasting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 682–691 (2019)

    2019

  4. [11]

    Computers and electronics in agriculture145, 311–318 (2018)

    Ferentinos, K.P.: Deep learning models for plant disease detection and diagnosis. Computers and electronics in agriculture145, 311–318 (2018)

    2018

  5. [12]

    Fungal genetics and biology79, 3–7 (2015)

    Fones, H., Gurr, S.: The impact of septoria tritici blotch disease on wheat: An eu perspective. Fungal genetics and biology79, 3–7 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01916 (2019)

    French, G., Laine, S., Aila, T., Mackiewicz, M., Finlayson, G.: Semi-supervised semantic segmentation needs strong, varied perturbations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.01916 (2019)

    1906 arXiv

  7. [14]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Ghiasi, G., Cui, Y., Srinivas, A., Qian, R., Lin, T.Y., Cubuk, E.D., Le, Q.V., Zoph, B.: Simple copy-paste is a strong data augmentation method for instance segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2918–2928 (2021)

    2021

  8. [15]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 1140–1156 (2022)

    Guo, M.H., Lu, C.Z., Hou, Q., Liu, Z., Cheng, M.M., Hu, S.M.: Segnext: Rethink- ing convolutional attention design for semantic segmentation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems35, 1140–1156 (2022)

    2022

  9. [16]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Gupta, A., Dollar, P., Girshick, R.: Lvis: A dataset for large vocabulary instance segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 5356–5364 (2019) 14 T. Wei et al

    2019

  10. [17]

    He,H.,Garcia,E.A.:Learningfromimbalanceddata.IEEETransactionsonknowl- edge and data engineering21(9), 1263–1284 (2009)

    2009

  11. [18]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    He, R., Yang, J., Qi, X.: Re-distributing biased pseudo labels for semi-supervised semantic segmentation: A baseline investigation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 6930–6940 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 22106–22118 (2021)

    Hu, H., Wei, F., Hu, H., Ye, Q., Cui, J., Wang, L.: Semi-supervised semantic segmentation via adaptive equalization learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 22106–22118 (2021)

    2021

  13. [20]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision

    Huang, Z., Wang, X., Huang, L., Huang, C., Wei, Y., Liu, W.: Ccnet: Criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF interna- tional conference on computer vision. pp. 603–612 (2019)

    2019

  14. [21]

    Li, J., Qiao, Y., Liu, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Z., Wang, M.: An improved yolov5-based vegetablediseasedetectionmethod.ComputersandElectronicsinAgriculture202, 107345 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    CVPPA@ECCV2024 (2024)

    Lim, J.S., Luo, Y., Chen, Z., Wei, T., Chapman, S., Huang, Z.: Track any peppers: Weakly supervised sweet pepper tracking using vlms. CVPPA@ECCV2024 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Liu, Z., Mao, H., Wu, C.Y., Feichtenhofer, C., Darrell, T., Xie, S.: A convnet for the 2020s. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 11976–11986 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Eco- logical Informatics75, 102068 (2023)

    Nigam, S., Jain, R., Marwaha, S., Arora, A., Haque, M.A., Dheeraj, A., Singh, V.K.: Deep transfer learning model for disease identification in wheat crop. Eco- logical Informatics75, 102068 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Smart Agricultural Technology 9, 100526 (2024)

    Polly, R., Devi, E.A.: Semantic segmentation for plant leaf disease classification and damage detection: A deep learning approach. Smart Agricultural Technology 9, 100526 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Multimedia Tools and Applications83(20), 58935– 58960 (2024)

    Saad, M.H., Salman, A.E.: A plant disease classification using one-shot learning technique with field images. Multimedia Tools and Applications83(20), 58935– 58960 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Samuel, D., Chechik, G.: Distributional robustness loss for long-tail learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 9495–9504 (2021)

    2021

  21. [28]

    Nature ecology & evolution3(3), 430–439 (2019)

    Savary, S., Willocquet, L., Pethybridge, S.J., Esker, P., McRoberts, N., Nelson, A.: The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nature ecology & evolution3(3), 430–439 (2019)

    2019

  22. [29]

    Frontiers in plant science13, 1031748 (2022)

    Shoaib, M., Hussain, T., Shah, B., Ullah, I., Shah, S.M., Ali, F., Park, S.H.: Deep learning-based segmentation and classification of leaf images for detection of tomato plant disease. Frontiers in plant science13, 1031748 (2022)

    2022

  23. [30]

    Journal of big data6(1), 1–48 (2019)

    Shorten, C., Khoshgoftaar, T.M.: A survey on image data augmentation for deep learning. Journal of big data6(1), 1–48 (2019)

    2019

  24. [31]

    Expert Systems with Applications254, 124387 (2024)

    Singh, A.K., Rao, A., Chattopadhyay, P., Maurya, R., Singh, L.: Effective plant disease diagnosis using vision transformer trained with leafy-generative adversarial network-generated images. Expert Systems with Applications254, 124387 (2024)

    2024

  25. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07919 (2022)

    Thakur, P.S., Khanna, P., Sheorey, T., Ojha, A.: Explainable vision transformer enabled convolutional neural network for plant disease identification: Plantxvit. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.07919 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Frontiers in Plant Science 14, 1212747 (2023) Augment to Segment 15

    Ullah, N., Khan, J.A., Almakdi, S., Alshehri, M.S., Al Qathrady, M., El-Rashidy, N., El-Sappagh, S., Ali, F.: An effective approach for plant leaf diseases classifica- tion based on a novel deepplantnet deep learning model. Frontiers in Plant Science 14, 1212747 (2023) Augment...

    2023

  27. [34]

    In: 2016 23rd international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR)

    Vinh, N.X., Erfani, S., Paisitkriangkrai, S., Bailey, J., Leckie, C., Ramamohanarao, K.: Training robust models using random projection. In: 2016 23rd international conference on pattern recognition (ICPR). pp. 531–536. IEEE (2016)

    2016

  28. [35]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Wang, J., Zhang, W., Zang, Y., Cao, Y., Pang, J., Gong, T., Chen, K., Liu, Z., Loy, C.C., Lin, D.: Seesaw loss for long-tailed instance segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9695– 9704 (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    Plant Phenomics p

    Wang, Z., Zenkl, R., Greche, L., De Solan, B., Samatan, L.B., Ouahid, S., Visioni, A., Robles-Zazueta, C.A., Pinto, F., Perez-Olivera, I., et al.: The global wheat full semantic organ segmentation (gwfss) dataset. Plant Phenomics p. 100084 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    In: ACM Multimedia 2024 (2024), https://openreview.net/forum?id=nycUC9g6IO

    Wei, T., Chen, Z., Huang, Z., Yu, X.: Benchmarking in-the-wild multimodal disease recognition and a versatile baseline. In: ACM Multimedia 2024 (2024), https://openreview.net/forum?id=nycUC9g6IO

    2024

  31. [38]

    In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Multimedia in Asia

    Wei, T., Chen, Z., Yu, X.: Snap and diagnose: An advanced multimodal retrieval system for identifying plant diseases in the wild. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Conference on Multimedia in Asia. pp. 1–3 (2024)

    2024

  32. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04038 (2024)

    Wei, T., Chen, Z., Yu, X., Chapman, S., Melloy, P., Huang, Z.: Plantseg: A large-scale in-the-wild dataset for plant disease segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04038 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia

    Wu, J., Song, L., Wang, T., Zhang, Q., Yuan, J.: Forest r-cnn: Large-vocabulary long-tailed object detection and instance segmentation. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM international conference on multimedia. pp. 1570–1578 (2020)

    2020

  34. [41]

    Advances in neural information processing systems34, 12077–12090 (2021)

    Xie, E., Wang, W., Yu, Z., Anandkumar, A., Alvarez, J.M., Luo, P.: Segformer: Simple and efficient design for semantic segmentation with transformers. Advances in neural information processing systems34, 12077–12090 (2021)

    2021

  35. [42]

    Frontiers in plant science11, 751 (2020)

    Xie, X., Ma, Y., Liu, B., He, J., Li, S., Wang, H.: A deep-learning-based real- time detector for grape leaf diseases using improved convolutional neural networks. Frontiers in plant science11, 751 (2020)

    2020

  36. [43]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Xu, M., Zhang, Z., Wei, F., Hu, H., Bai, X.: Side adapter network for open- vocabulary semantic segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2945–2954 (2023)

    2023

  37. [44]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id=BVSM0x3EDK6

    Xu, Z., Liu, D., Yang, J., Raffel, C., Niethammer, M.: Robust and generalizable visual representation learning via random convolutions. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2021), https://openreview.net/forum?id=BVSM0x3EDK6

    2021

  38. [45]

    International Journal of Computer Vision130(7), 1837–1872 (2022)

    Yang, L., Jiang, H., Song, Q., Guo, J.: A survey on long-tailed visual recognition. International Journal of Computer Vision130(7), 1837–1872 (2022)

    2022

  39. [46]

    Frontiers in Plant Science15, 1423238 (2024)

    Yang, T., Wei, J., Xiao, Y., Wang, S., Tan, J., Niu, Y., Duan, X., Pan, F., Pu, H.: Lt-deeplab: An improved deeplabv3+ cross-scale segmentation algorithm for zanthoxylum bungeanum maxim leaf-trunk diseases in real-world environments. Frontiers in Plant Science15, 1423238 (2024)

    2024

  40. [47]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Zang, Y., Huang, C., Loy, C.C.: Fasa: Feature augmentation and sampling adap- tation for long-tailed instance segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 3457–3466 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 218, 108740 (2024) 16 T

    Zhang, Y., Lv, C.: Tinysegformer: A lightweight visual segmentation model for real-time agricultural pest detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 218, 108740 (2024) 16 T. Wei et al

    2024

  42. [50]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Zhao, H., Shi, J., Qi, X., Wang, X., Jia, J.: Pyramid scene parsing network. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 2881–2890 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Scientific Reports14(1), 1–18 (2024)

    Zheng, Y., Zheng, W., Du, X.: A lightweight rice pest detection algorithm based on improved yolov8. Scientific Reports14(1), 1–18 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.