pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26084 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI· cs.RO

FruitProM-V2: Robust Probabilistic Maturity Estimation and Detection of Fruits and Vegetables

Rahul Harsha Cheppally , Sidharth Rai , Sudan Baral , Benjamin Vail , Ajay Sharda This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AIcs.RO
keywords fruit maturity estimationprobabilistic detectioncontinuous ripeninglabel noise robustnessCDF conversiontomato annotation studydistributional head
0
0 comments X

The pith

Modeling fruit maturity as a continuous latent variable with a distributional head produces more robust estimates under label noise than standard classification.

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

The paper shows that ripening is a continuous process but is usually forced into discrete maturity classes, creating unreliable boundaries where images look similar. An annotation study on tomatoes found human disagreements clustered exactly at those transitions between stages. The authors replace the usual classifier with a head that outputs a probability distribution over a hidden continuous maturity score and converts it to class probabilities using the cumulative distribution function. This keeps accuracy on clean labels comparable to a baseline detector while showing clearer gains when training labels are deliberately corrupted with noise. The result suggests that capturing uncertainty explicitly improves reliability for harvest decisions where labels are imperfect.

Core claim

Maturity is modeled as a latent continuous variable whose distribution is predicted by a distributional detection head; class probabilities are then obtained via the cumulative distribution function. The formulation matches standard detector performance on clean labels yet demonstrates improved robustness when controlled label noise is introduced during training, showing that explicit modeling of maturity uncertainty produces more reliable visual estimates.

What carries the argument

Distributional detection head that predicts parameters of a distribution over a latent continuous maturity variable, converted to class probabilities by the cumulative distribution function.

If this is right

  • Detectors trained this way become less sensitive to boundary errors common in maturity annotations.
  • Harvest timing systems can use the full probability distribution instead of forcing a single class label.
  • Datasets collected with multiple annotators can be used directly without aggressive cleaning of borderline cases.
  • The same continuous modeling approach extends to other vision tasks where biological or physical states change gradually rather than in sharp steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Robotic harvesters could weight picking decisions by the probability mass near each maturity stage instead of acting on a single predicted class.
  • Adding explicit modeling of lighting or cultivar as additional latent variables might further reduce errors in varied field conditions.
  • The method could be tested on other produce with gradual ripening, such as bananas or avocados, to check if the noise-robustness benefit generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

Disagreements between annotators near stage boundaries arise mainly from the continuous character of ripening rather than lighting, cultivar differences, or other subjective factors, and the CDF conversion faithfully turns that uncertainty into usable class probabilities.

What would settle it

Train both the probabilistic model and a standard multi-class detector on the same tomato images after adding label noise that is unrelated to stage boundaries, such as random class flips, and test whether the probabilistic version still shows a robustness advantage.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26084 by Ajay Sharda, Benjamin Vail, Rahul Harsha Cheppally, Sidharth Rai, Sudan Baral.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: From Annotation Ambiguity to Probabilistic Continuous Estimation. (a) Reliability Study: Our inter-annotator study reveals systematic labeling disagreement on fruits positioned at maturity transition boundaries (e.g., intermediate vs. ripe), suggesting that maturity labels are subjective snapshots of an underlying biological continuum. (b) Motivation: By performing bipartite matching via the Hungarian algo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Qualitative comparison on transitional samples. Baseline (left of each pair) struggles with conflicting boxes or incorrect classes. view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate fruit maturity identification is essential for determining harvest timing, as incorrect assessment directly affects yield and post-harvest quality. Although ripening is a continuous biological process, vision-based maturity estimation is typically formulated as a multi-class classification task, which imposes sharp boundaries between visually similar stages. To examine this limitation, we perform an annotation reliability study with two independent annotators on a held-out tomato dataset and observe disagreement concentrated near adjacent maturity stages. Motivated by this observation, we model maturity as a latent continuous variable and predict it probabilistically using a distributional detection head, converting the distribution into class probabilities through the cumulative distribution function (CDF). The proposed formulation maintains comparable performance to a standard detector under clean labels while better representing uncertainty. Furthermore, when controlled label noise is introduced during training, the probabilistic model demonstrates improved robustness relative to the baseline, indicating that explicitly modeling maturity uncertainty leads to more reliable visual maturity estimation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces FruitProM-V2, which models fruit and vegetable maturity as a latent continuous variable rather than discrete classes. Motivated by an annotation study on a held-out tomato dataset showing annotator disagreements concentrated near adjacent stages, the authors use a distributional detection head to predict a probability distribution over the continuous maturity variable and convert it to class probabilities via the CDF. They report that the approach achieves performance comparable to a standard detector on clean labels while demonstrating improved robustness when controlled label noise is introduced during training.

Significance. If the robustness results are confirmed with fuller experimental controls, the work would provide a principled way to handle the inherent uncertainty in visual maturity assessment for agricultural applications, potentially improving harvest timing decisions and reducing waste. The explicit continuous modeling and CDF conversion offer a clear alternative to discrete classification when ripening is gradual.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and Experiments section: The central robustness claim rests on a controlled label-noise experiment, yet the manuscript provides no description of the noise-generation procedure, no quantitative comparison to the observed two-annotator disagreement rates, and no ablation isolating the CDF step from other probabilistic modeling choices. This prevents verification that the performance gap is attributable to continuous uncertainty modeling rather than generic tolerance to soft labels.
  2. Experimental details: Dataset sizes, error bars, and the precise implementation of the distributional head (e.g., parameterization of the output distribution) are not reported, which are load-bearing for reproducing and assessing the claimed robustness advantage over the baseline.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: The motivation paragraph could explicitly name the tomato dataset used for the annotation reliability study to improve traceability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which highlights important aspects for improving the clarity and reproducibility of our work. We address each major comment below and will update the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and Experiments section: The central robustness claim rests on a controlled label-noise experiment, yet the manuscript provides no description of the noise-generation procedure, no quantitative comparison to the observed two-annotator disagreement rates, and no ablation isolating the CDF step from other probabilistic modeling choices. This prevents verification that the performance gap is attributable to continuous uncertainty modeling rather than generic tolerance to soft labels.

    Authors: We agree that these details are essential for verifying the robustness claims. In the revised manuscript, we will add a detailed description of the noise-generation procedure in the Experiments section, including the specific perturbation method and rates used. We will also include a quantitative comparison of the synthetic noise levels to the empirical two-annotator disagreement rates from the annotation study. Additionally, we will report an ablation study that isolates the CDF conversion from other probabilistic components to demonstrate its specific contribution to robustness. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Experimental details: Dataset sizes, error bars, and the precise implementation of the distributional head (e.g., parameterization of the output distribution) are not reported, which are load-bearing for reproducing and assessing the claimed robustness advantage over the baseline.

    Authors: We acknowledge the need for these specifics to support reproducibility. The revised manuscript will report the exact dataset sizes for all training, validation, and test splits. Error bars (standard deviations across multiple runs with different random seeds) will be added to all quantitative results. We will also specify the distributional head implementation, including the output distribution family (e.g., Gaussian) and how its parameters are predicted by the network. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity; continuous modeling and robustness evaluation are independent

full rationale

The paper motivates the latent continuous maturity variable from an external annotation disagreement study, implements a distributional head plus CDF conversion, and evaluates the resulting robustness claim on a separate controlled label-noise experiment using held-out data. No equations, predictions, or performance metrics reduce by construction to fitted parameters or self-citations. The noise-robustness result is statistically independent of the model definition, supporting only a low score for possible minor unexamined assumptions rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard computer-vision assumptions plus the domain claim that maturity is usefully modeled as a single latent continuous scalar. No new entities are postulated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Maturity can be represented as a single latent continuous variable whose distribution can be converted to discrete class probabilities via CDF.
    Invoked in the abstract to justify moving from multi-class classification to distributional prediction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5471 in / 1116 out tokens · 30630 ms · 2026-05-07T16:28:56.305795+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Judith A. Abbott. Quality measurement of fruits and vegeta- bles.Postharvest Biology and Technology, 15(3):207–225,

    work page

  2. [2]

    Insights into recent developments and obsta- cles in automated fruit ripeness classification.Green Tech- nologies and Sustainability, 4(2):100302, 2026

    Zienab F R Ahmed, Abdelmoneim K Abdalla, Navjot Kaur, and Falin Wu. Insights into recent developments and obsta- cles in automated fruit ripeness classification.Green Tech- nologies and Sustainability, 4(2):100302, 2026. 2

    work page 2026

  3. [3]

    Amini et al

    A. Amini et al. Deep evidential regression. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2020. 3

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Beck and Others

    A. Beck and Others. The impact of label noise on deep learning-based plant disease classification.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 172:105344, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    Christopher M. Bishop. Mixture density networks. Technical report, Aston University, 1994. 3

    work page 1994

  6. [6]

    Bridgemohan et al

    P. Bridgemohan et al. The bbch-scale for describing the phe- nological stages of plant development.International Journal of Applied Research, 2016. 3

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    F. Bu, J. Zhao, and L. Wang. Citrus ripeness detection using yolov5 with attention mechanisms under natural or- chard conditions.Postharvest Biology and Technology, 200: 112284, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    D ´ıaz and A

    I. D ´ıaz and A. Marathe. Soft labels for ordinal classification. Pattern Recognition Letters, 125:381–388, 2019. 2

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    On kuhn’s hungarian method?a tribute from hungary.Nav

    Andr ´es Frank. On kuhn’s hungarian method?a tribute from hungary.Nav. Res. Logist., 52(1):2–5, 2005. 4

    work page 2005

  10. [10]

    Garg et al

    S. Garg et al. Robust ordinal regression with noise-tolerant labels. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Garillos-Manliguez and J

    C. Garillos-Manliguez and J. Y . Chiang. Multimodal deep learning and visible-light and hyperspectral imaging for fruit maturity estimation.Sensors, 21(4):1288, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    X. Geng. Label distribution learning.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 28(7):1734–1748, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  13. [13]

    Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals, and J. Dean. Distilling the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. 3

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Real-time object detection meets dinov3, 2026

    Shihua Huang, Yongjie Hou, Longfei Liu, Xuanlong Yu, and Xi Shen. Real-time object detection meets dinov3, 2026. 5

    work page 2026

  15. [15]

    Kader.Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops

    Adel A. Kader.Postharvest Technology of Horticultural Crops. University of California Agriculture and Natural Re- sources, Oakland, California, 3rd edition, 2002. 1, 2

    work page 2002

  16. [16]

    Deep learning in agriculture: A survey.Comput

    Andreas Kamilaris and Francesc X Prenafeta-Bold ´u. Deep learning in agriculture: A survey.Comput. Electron. Agric., 147:70–90, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Kendall and Y

    A. Kendall and Y . Gal. What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  18. [18]

    The hungarian method for the assignment prob- lem.Nav

    H W Kuhn. The hungarian method for the assignment prob- lem.Nav. Res. Logist. Q., 2(1-2):83–97, 1955. 4

    work page 1955

  19. [19]

    Lakshminarayanan, A

    B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep en- sembles. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems (NeurIPS), 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  20. [20]

    Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection .IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 42 (02):318–327, 2020

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollar. Focal Loss for Dense Object Detection .IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, 42 (02):318–327, 2020. 5

    work page 2020

  21. [21]

    Liu et al

    G. Liu et al. A robust tomato system for tomato detection based on yolo-tomato.Sensors, 20(7):2145, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Y . Liu, W. Cao, and J. Wang. Ordinal deep learning for continuous attribute prediction in agricultural image analy- sis.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 206:107643,

    work page

  23. [23]

    Rt-detrv2: Improved base- line with bag-of-freebies for real-time detection transformer,

    Wenyu Lv, Yian Zhao, Qinyao Chang, Kui Huang, Guanzhong Wang, and Yi Liu. Rt-detrv2: Improved base- line with bag-of-freebies for real-time detection transformer,

    work page

  24. [24]

    Y . Mao, J. Sun, and H. Li. Strawberry maturity estimation using convolutional neural networks in controlled environ- ments.Sensors, 23(9):4203, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Julius K ¨uhn-Institut, 2009

    Uwe Meier.Growth stages of mono-and dicotyledonous plants: BBCH Monograph. Julius K ¨uhn-Institut, 2009. 3

    work page 2009

  26. [26]

    C. G. Northcutt, L. Jiang, and I. L. Chuang. Confident learn- ing: Estimating uncertainty in dataset labels.Journal of Ar- tificial Intelligence Research, 70:1373–1411, 2021. 2

    work page 2021

  27. [27]

    Peirs, J

    A. Peirs, J. Lammertyn, K. Ooms, and B. M. Nicolai. Deter- mination of apple fruit firmness and soluble solids by means of nir spectroscopy.Postharvest Biology and Technology, 27 (2):129–139, 2002. 1

    work page 2002

  28. [28]

    J. C. Peterson et al. Learning from human uncertainty. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 3

    work page 2019

  29. [29]

    Fruit ripen- ing phenomena–an overview.Crit

    V Prasanna, T N Prabha, and R N Tharanathan. Fruit ripen- ing phenomena–an overview.Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 47 (1):1–19, 2007. 1

    work page 2007

  30. [30]

    Fruitprom: Prob- abilistic maturity estimation and detection of fruits and veg- etables, 2025

    Sidharth Rai, Rahul Harsha Cheppally, Benjamin Vail, Kez- iban Yalc ¸ın Dokumacı, and Ajay Sharda. Fruitprom: Prob- abilistic maturity estimation and detection of fruits and veg- etables, 2025. 5

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks

    Shaoqing Ren, Kaiming He, Ross Girshick, and Jian Sun. Faster r-cnn: Towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems (NeurIPS), 2015. 5

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Sadeghi-Tehran et al

    P. Sadeghi-Tehran et al. Automated method to determine two critical phenological stages in wheat: Anthesis and physio- logical maturity.Plant Methods, 13, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  33. [33]

    Sadowski and P

    P. Sadowski and P. Baldi. On the use of beta and dirich- let distributions for deep learning regression.arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00418, 2019. 3

    work page arXiv 1911

  34. [34]

    Yolo26: Key architectural enhancements and performance bench- marking for real-time object detection

    R Sapkota, RH Cheppally, A Sharda, and M Karkee. Yolo26: Key architectural enhancements and performance bench- marking for real-time object detection. arxiv 2025.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25164. 5

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Ranjan Sapkota, Rahul Harsha Cheppally, Ajay Sharda, and Manoj Karkee. Rf-detr object detection vs yolov12 : A study of transformer-based and cnn-based architectures for single- class and multi-class greenfruit detection in complex orchard environments under label ambiguity, 2025. 5

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Sensoy, L

    M. Sensoy, L. Kaplan, and M. Kandemir. Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2018. 3

    work page 2018

  37. [37]

    The journey of mango: How the shipping systems af- fect fruit quality, consumer acceptance, and environmental impact.Plants (Basel), 14(21), 2025

    Cosimo Taiti, Bruno Bighignoli, Giulia Mozzo, Elettra Marone, Elisa Masi, Diego Comparini, and Edgardo Gior- dani. The journey of mango: How the shipping systems af- fect fruit quality, consumer acceptance, and environmental impact.Plants (Basel), 14(21), 2025. 1

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection

    Zhi Tian, Chunhua Shen, Hao Chen, and Tong He. Fcos: Fully convolutional one-stage object detection. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV), pages 9627–9636, 2019. 5

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Wu et al

    H. Wu et al. Improved rt-detr and its application to fruit ripeness detection.Journal of Agricultural Engineering,

    work page

  40. [40]

    R. Xiao, Z. Liu, and Q. Zhang. Multi-fruit ripeness detec- tion based on yolov8 and transfer learning.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 210:107908, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Yang et al

    W. Yang et al. Ls-yolov8s: A lightweight model for straw- berry ripeness detection under occlusion.Frontiers in Plant Science, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Dino: Detr with improved de- noising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection

    Hao Zhang, Feng Li, Shilong Liu, Lei Zhang, Hang Su, Jun Zhu, Lionel M Ni, and Lei He. Dino: Detr with improved de- noising anchor boxes for end-to-end object detection. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR),

    work page

  43. [43]

    Zhang, Y

    H. Zhang, Y . Li, and X. Chen. Tomato ripeness classification in complex environments using yolov5 and transfer learn- ing.Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 198:107054,

    work page

  44. [44]

    Multi-class ob- ject detection using faster R-CNN and estimation of shak- ing locations for automated shake-and-catch apple harvest- ing.Comput

    Jing Zhang, Manoj Karkee, Qin Zhang, Xin Zhang, Majeed Yaqoob, Longsheng Fu, and Shumao Wang. Multi-class ob- ject detection using faster R-CNN and estimation of shak- ing locations for automated shake-and-catch apple harvest- ing.Comput. Electron. Agric., 173(105384):105384, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  45. [45]

    Zhao et al

    Y . Zhao et al. Yolo-dgs: A deep learning model for real-time tomato detection.Agricultural Intelligence Review, 2025. 2

    work page 2025

  46. [46]

    Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection

    Xizhou Zhu, Weijie Su, Lewei Lu, Bin Li, Xiaogang Wang, and Jifeng Dai. Deformable detr: Deformable transformers for end-to-end object detection. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2020. 5

    work page 2020