Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

WeedNet: A Foundation Model-Based Global-to-Local AI Approach for Real-Time Weed Species Identification and Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read WeedNet, trained on roughly 14 million images of 1,593 weed species, reports 91.02% top-1 accuracy and 97.38% on Iowa's 84 key weeds after regional fine-tuning.

desk verdict A genuinely useful large-scale weed dataset and model whose headline accuracies are plausible but rest on an under-described train/test split; worth refereeing, with evaluation transparency required. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18930 v1 pith:WQURO2PE submitted 2025-05-25 cs.CV cs.AI

Yanben Shen , Timilehin T. Ayanlade , Venkata Naresh Boddepalli , Mojdeh Saadati , Ashlyn Rairdin , Zi K. Deng , Muhammad Arbab Arshad , Aditya Balu
show 8 more authors
Daren Mueller Asheesh K Singh Wesley Everman Nirav Merchant Baskar Ganapathysubramanian Meaghan Anderson Soumik Sarkar Arti Singh
This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords weedspeciesidentificationfoundationmodelself-supervisedlearningmaskedautoencodervisiontransformerglobal-to-localfine-tuningconformalpredictionout-of-distributiondetection
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

WeedNet is a global-scale weed identification model: an end-to-end vision pipeline trained on roughly 14 million images spanning 1,593 weed species, including noxious and invasive plants. It reports 91.02% top-1 accuracy on that global set, with 41% of species recognized perfectly, and it reaches 97.38% accuracy for 84 Iowa weed species after fine-tuning with a global-to-local strategy. The paper's central proposal is that self-supervised pretraining followed by region-specific fine-tuning lets one large model act as a foundation for local weed identification with far fewer labeled images, on platforms from smartphones to drones and ground rovers. A sympathetic reader would care because early, accurate, species-level weed identification is the bottleneck for targeted weed control, herbicide-resistance management, and early detection of invasive species.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the global-to-local fine-tuning pipeline. A masked autoencoder (a self-supervised learner that reconstructs randomly masked image patches) pretrains a Vision Transformer backbone on the 14-million-image weed collection without labels, after an initial pretraining pass on a much larger out-of-domain image set; supervised fine-tuning then adds the 1,593-species classifier head. The global-to-local step refines that backbone on a regional expert-labeled set, so broad plant knowledge is transferred to a smaller local class list with far fewer labels. Around the classifier, an energy-based out-of-distribution detector recognizes inputs that fall outside the training distribution, and conformal prediction converts softmax scores into label sets that contain the true class with a chosen probability, which is what makes the real-time outputs safe to act on.

What would settle it

Hash every test image against the training set and compare observer and GPS metadata; if any test image is a near-duplicate of a training image or shares an observer or location with the training set, recompute the 91.02% and 97.38% accuracies on a strictly disjoint sample and see whether the numbers survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper sets out to show that a model pretrained in two self-supervised stages and then fine-tuned on citizen-science labels can recognize an unprecedentedly wide set of weed species and still adapt to a narrow regional task. On the global task, the model reaches 91.02% top-1 accuracy across 1,593 species; 41% of species are classified with 100% accuracy and 89.7% of species exceed 80%. The errors that remain concentrate in look-alike species and in classes with many fewer training images, which the authors interpret as evidence that morphological trait diversity, not raw image count, drives performance. The global-to-local fine-tuned model achieves 97.38% accuracy on 84 Midwest weed species, improving to 97.68% when expert-verified images are added for eleven confused classes, and few-shot evaluations on external datasets show the same backbone transferring with as few as ten images per class. The authors also demonstrate working deployment on UAV and ground-rover imagery, with an energy-based out-of-distribution detector and conformal prediction added so the model can flag when it does not know.

Load-bearing premise

The entire evaluation assumes that the 20 test images per species are an independent, fresh sample from the same distribution as the training images, with no overlap of plants, photographers, or locations; the paper never describes how the train-test split was created.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Regions and crops with only modest labeled collections can build accurate local weed identifiers by fine-tuning the global model, rather than training from scratch; the k-shot results show large gains from as few as ten labeled images per species.
  • The same model can be run on images from drones and ground rovers during the early season, when weed-control decisions are made, with accuracy reported above 80% at seedling and vegetative stages before canopy closure.
  • Because the model reports per-class confusion, its mistakes double as a map of look-alike species, guiding where to collect expert images and which morphological details, such as grass ligules and auricles, to photograph.
  • The trustworthiness wrappers change field practice: an out-of-distribution flag or a wide conformal set tells the user to ask an expert instead of acting on a single confident label.
  • The same global-to-local recipe could be applied to quarantine screening of imported seeds and plant parts, a port-of-entry use the authors explicitly identify as a next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The 91.02% global number is measured on a sample drawn from the same citizen-science distribution; the paper's own life-stage and look-alike tests put accuracy at 79.2% and 60.6%, so field performance on young or confusable plants will be noticeably below the headline figure.
  • If the 20 test images per species were selected after training rather than held out at the observation level, images of the same plant or by the same photographer could sit on both sides of the split; releasing the split procedure or image hashes would let readers check whether the accuracy figures reflect generalization.
  • The global-to-local recipe should transfer to other regions, but the paper does not give a rule for how many local images each species needs; a direct test would be to plot per-species accuracy against local label count across several held-out regions.
  • A field-deployable early-warning system for new invasive species could be built by monitoring repeated out-of-distribution flags on plants that resemble known weeds, then routing those images to expert review; the paper gestures at this idea but does not specify the operating protocol.
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 presents WeedNet, a ViT/MAE-based weed classifier trained on roughly 14 million iNaturalist images of 1,593 weed species, using self-supervised pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, EBM-based out-of-distribution detection, conformal prediction, and a global-to-local fine-tuning procedure for an 84-species Iowa model. The reported headline results are 91.02% top-1 global accuracy, 97.38% accuracy for the Iowa global-to-local model, k-shot transfer results on several public weed datasets, and UAV/ground-rover field evaluations. The central methodological claims are that large-scale citizen-science data combined with SSL and targeted fine-tuning yields an accurate, transferable, and deployable weed identification system, and that the resulting model can serve as a foundation model for regional weed classifiers.

Significance. If the headline numbers are reliable, this is a practically valuable contribution: it assembles one of the largest weed-classification datasets from citizen science, demonstrates a concrete global-to-local transfer recipe, and provides deployment evidence on smartphones, UAVs, and ground rovers. The paper's strengths include the public code repository, the multi-dataset k-shot evaluation design, the use of independent web-image, life-stage, look-alike, and robotic-platform test sets, and the integration of uncertainty-aware components (OOD detection and conformal prediction). The main limitation is that the core evaluation protocol is underspecified, so the exact numerical claims are not yet established to the standard required for a foundation-model claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2.1, Table 2, Supplementary S3] The evaluation protocol for the headline accuracies is not sufficiently specified. The paper states only that "twenty images per species from the iNaturalist data" were used for testing and validation, and Supplementary S3 says "from which we utilized 20 images for training and test sets." No split unit (image, observation, photographer, or location) is given, and no de-duplication step is described. Since iNaturalist observations often contain multiple photographs of the same plant at the same time, and the same observer frequently photographs the same population, a per-image random split can place near-duplicate images on both sides of the boundary. Because the same 14M images are also used for MAE pretraining, an overlapping test image could be seen during pretraining. With only 20 test images per class, even a handful of leaked images per class can shift the 91.02% and 97.38% values by several percentage points. Please specify the exact split procedure, state that the 20 test images per species are disjoint from all pretraining and fine-tuning images, and, if possible, perform the split at the observation or location level rather than the image level.
  2. [Figure 5, §3.2.1] All per-class accuracies rest on 20 test images per species, but no confidence intervals or error bars are reported. The claim that 41% of species reach 100% accuracy is a statement about per-class binomial estimates from 20 trials; a single misclassified image changes a class's accuracy by 5 percentage points, and a species with 20/20 correct has a wide binomial confidence interval. The same issue affects the per-class accuracy comparisons in Figure 5B and Figure 6C. Please report Clopper-Pearson or Wilson intervals for per-class accuracies and a confidence interval for the aggregate 91.02% and 97.38% numbers, and state explicitly how many test images are available per class for each reported number.
  3. [Table 3, Supplementary S5] The zero-shot and few-shot transfer evidence is weakened by class overlap with the training set. The paper reports that 11/12 CottonWeedDet12 classes, 5/8 DeepWeeds classes, and 15/24 WeedsAI classes are shared with the 1,593-species WeedNet training list, but no results are reported separately for the non-overlapping classes. On overlapping classes, zero-shot accuracy may reflect label and task overlap with the pretrained and fine-tuned class vocabulary rather than generalizable transfer. Please report per-class results restricted to the non-overlap subsets, or explicitly analyze how zero-shot accuracy varies with class overlap.
  4. [Abstract, §2.2.2, Discussion] The "foundation model" claim is stronger than the evidence presented. The manuscript demonstrates transfer only for image classification through fine-tuning (Table 3 and Stage 6 of Table 1), while the Discussion frames object detection and segmentation as future work. The title and abstract state that WeedNet is a "foundation model" and "function[s] as a foundational model," but no multi-task or non-classification downstream evaluation is provided. Please either qualify the claim to a classification backbone with demonstrated transfer via fine-tuning, or add downstream task evidence.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract, §5] The abstract reports "85 Iowa weeds" while the body and Table 2 consistently use 84; the conclusion reports 91.2% and 97.4% where the results report 91.02% and 97.38%. Please harmonize these numbers.
  2. [§2.4] The sentence beginning "Furthermore, the WeedNet model is integrated with a chatbot, resulting in PestIDBot" is garbled and duplicated ("a retrieval-augmented generatithe WeedNet model is integrated with a chatbot,on conversational agent"); please rewrite it.
  3. [§2.2.3] The conformal prediction description is internally inconsistent: Section 2.2.3 first states α=0.95 and then defines the quantile with 1−α, while Section 3.2.4 states α=0.05. Please clarify the notation and the direction of the confidence level.
  4. [Supplementary S3] The sentence "for finetuning we used the all of the 14M images, from which we utilized 20 images for training and test sets" needs correction; it currently contradicts Section 2.2.1 and does not explain how the held-out test set was created.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline 91.02% and 97.38% accuracies are computed on 20-images-per-species test sets drawn from the same 14M iNaturalist images used for supervised fine-tuning, making the claimed prediction partly in-sample.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2.1 (Global Model - Pretraining and Finetuning Approach); Supplementary Material S3; Table 1 Stages 3 and 6]
    "Section 2.2.1: "We used twenty images per species from the iNaturalist data for testing and validation." Supplementary S3: "for finetuning we used the all of the 14M images, from which we utilized 20 images for training and test sets.""

    Stage 3 of Table 1 is supervised fine-tuning on ~14M labeled iNaturalist images, and Stage 6 fine-tunes the local model on ~2M of the same iNaturalist data. Supplementary S3 states that the 20-images-per-species test/validation sets were taken from that same 14M image pool. On the literal reading of the paper, the 20 test images per species are therefore inside the fine-tuning set, so the reported 91.02% global accuracy and 97.38% local accuracy are in-sample fit accuracies on training images rather than held-out generalization measurements. The paper never describes splitting at the image, observation, photographer, or location level, nor any deduplication between the 14M training images and the per-species 20-image test sets.

full rationale

The paper's training and evaluation text, read together, make the headline accuracy numbers partly in-sample. Section 2.2.1 sets aside 20 iNaturalist images per species for testing/validation, and Supplementary S3 says fine-tuning used all 14M images from which those 20-image sets were drawn. Since Stage 3 is supervised fine-tuning on the full 14M labeled set, the test images are inside the training set unless an unstated exclusion step is assumed; the reported 91.02% (and the 97.38% local model, fine-tuned on ~2M of the same iNaturalist data) is therefore a fit to training images on the paper's own description. The external web-image, UAV, and rover evaluations are independent and point in the same direction, but they are smaller and measure different subsets, so they do not certify the headline figures. No other circularity was found: the SSL/MAE and global-to-local methodology follows standard transfer-learning practice, and the k-shot benchmark results are external despite partial class overlap that the paper discloses. The dominant concern is evaluation overlap rather than a derivation that is equivalent to its inputs by definition, so the circularity is partial rather than total.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central accuracy claims rest on iNaturalist label quality and test-set independence assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced; the free parameters are ML hyperparameters and evaluation choices.

free parameters (6)
  • Minimum images per species threshold = 100
    Species with fewer than 100 research-grade iNaturalist images were excluded (Section 2.1). This cutoff shapes the 1,593-class set and excludes rare weeds.
  • Conformal prediction alpha = 0.05
    Set in Section 2.2.3; controls the predicted set size and yields 94.7% coverage (Section 3.2.4).
  • EBM temperature T = 0.02
    Tuned for OOD detection in Section 2.2.3; affects AUROC and threshold.
  • OOD decision threshold = -8.2484
    Chosen from ROC curve in Section 3.2.3 to separate in-distribution and out-of-distribution data.
  • Test images per species = 20
    All global and local evaluations use 20 images per species (Table 2), which drives the accuracy statistics.
  • Expert-data fine-tuned classes = 11 classes
    Selected post hoc after initial evaluation (Section 3.2.2); adding expert images for these classes raises local accuracy from 97.38% to 97.68%.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption iNaturalist research-grade observations are correctly labeled at the species level for all 1,593 classes.
    Invoked in Section 2.1. The model is trained and tested on these labels; the paper cites one study on label quality for some plant families but does not validate all 1,593 species.
  • domain assumption The 20 test images per species are independent of the training images.
    Assumed throughout Section 3; the train/test split is not described, so independence is unverified.
  • domain assumption The curated lists from NISIC, the Midwest Invasive Plant Network, and Bugwood define the relevant global weed set.
    Section 2.1 uses these lists to filter the 1,593 classes; the scope of 'global weed identification' is set by these curated lists.
  • domain assumption Pretraining on 3.5 billion Instagram hashtag images improves weed classification.
    Section 2.2.1 follows Mahajan et al.; this benefit is assumed from prior work and not directly evaluated in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of WeedNet: A Foundation Model-Based Global-to-Local AI Approach for Real-Time Weed Species Identification and Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQURO2PE

@misc{pith2026250518930,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: WeedNet: A Foundation Model-Based Global-to-Local AI Approach for Real-Time Weed Species Identification and Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQURO2PE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18930}
}
read the original abstract

Early identification of weeds is essential for effective management and control, and there is growing interest in automating the process using computer vision techniques coupled with AI methods. However, challenges associated with training AI-based weed identification models, such as limited expert-verified data and complexity and variability in morphological features, have hindered progress. To address these issues, we present WeedNet, the first global-scale weed identification model capable of recognizing an extensive set of weed species, including noxious and invasive plant species. WeedNet is an end-to-end real-time weed identification pipeline and uses self-supervised learning, fine-tuning, and enhanced trustworthiness strategies. WeedNet achieved 91.02% accuracy across 1,593 weed species, with 41% species achieving 100% accuracy. Using a fine-tuning strategy and a Global-to-Local approach, the local Iowa WeedNet model achieved an overall accuracy of 97.38% for 85 Iowa weeds, most classes exceeded a 90% mean accuracy per class. Testing across intra-species dissimilarity (developmental stages) and inter-species similarity (look-alike species) suggests that diversity in the images collected, spanning all the growth stages and distinguishable plant characteristics, is crucial in driving model performance. The generalizability and adaptability of the Global WeedNet model enable it to function as a foundational model, with the Global-to-Local strategy allowing fine-tuning for region-specific weed communities. Additional validation of drone- and ground-rover-based images highlights the potential of WeedNet for integration into robotic platforms. Furthermore, integration with AI for conversational use provides intelligent agricultural and ecological conservation consulting tools for farmers, agronomists, researchers, land managers, and government agencies across diverse landscapes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18930 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Examples of intra-species dissimilarity across developmental stages in common lambsquar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples illustrating inter-species similarity challenges among various weed groups. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the Global Weed Model Development and Implementation. The Global Weed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example interface of the PestIDBot application on a common dandelion image. Users [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) Histogram showing the per-class accuracies across 1593 weed species. The plot reveals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The figures of the global-to-local fine-tuned model (a) Histogram depicting per-class [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ROC curve over all possible threshold values. We chose a threshold value that provides [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Examples of WeedNet identified intra-species dissimilar weeds through developmental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of WeedNet identified inter-species similar weeds in a) Amaranth family b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Example predictions from WeedNet using images of the collar region in 15 grass species. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Examples of WeedNet can accurately classify invasive weed species (listed by NISIC, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Field evaluation of the WeedNet model using UAV and ground rover data. The model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_12.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. FoMo4Wheat: Toward reliable crop vision foundation models with globally curated data

    cs.CV 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Training a vision transformer on 2.5 million wheat images outperforms general-domain backbones across ten crop vision tasks.

  2. SPROUT: A Scalable Diffusion Foundation Model for Agricultural Vision

    cs.CV 2026-03 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    SPROUT, a pixel-space diffusion transformer pre-trained on 2.6M unlabeled agricultural images with effective-rank timestep selection, outperforms web-pretrained foundation models on dense plant phenotyping tasks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

153 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Principles in weed management

    Aldrich RJ and Kremer RJ. Principles in weed management. Ed. 2. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1997:455

    1997

  2. [2]

    Potential corn yield losses from weeds in North America

    Soltani N, Dille JA, Burke IC, et al. Potential corn yield losses from weeds in North America. Weed Technology 2016;30:979–84

    2016

  3. [3]

    Potential wheat yield loss due to weeds in the United States and Canada

    Flessner ML, Burke IC, Dille JA, et al. Potential wheat yield loss due to weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Technology 2021;35:916–23

    2021

  4. [4]

    Potential yield loss in dry bean crops due to weeds in the United States and Canada

    Soltani N, Dille JA, Gulden RH, et al. Potential yield loss in dry bean crops due to weeds in the United States and Canada. Weed Technology 2018;32:342–6

    2018

  5. [5]

    Site-specific weed control technologies

    Christensen S, Søgaard HT, Kudsk P, et al. Site-specific weed control technologies. Weed Research 2009;49:233–41

    2009

  6. [6]

    What are Invasive Species? Accessed: 2025-03-

    National Invasive Species Information Center. What are Invasive Species? Accessed: 2025-03-

    2025

  7. [7]

    Leafy spurge effects on patterns of plant species richness

    Butler JL and Cogan DR. Leafy spurge effects on patterns of plant species richness. Journal of range management 2004;57:305–11

    2004

  8. [8]

    Palmer ama- ranth (Amaranthus palmeri) adaptation to US Midwest agroecosystems

    Oliveira MC, Jhala AJ, Bernards ML, Proctor CA, Stepanovic S, and Werle R. Palmer ama- ranth (Amaranthus palmeri) adaptation to US Midwest agroecosystems. Frontiers in Agron- omy 2022;4:887629

    2022

Show all 153 references
  1. [9]

    Early detection, herbicide resistance screening, and integrated management of invasive plant species: a review

    Tataridas A, Jabran K, Kanatas P, Oliveira RS, Freitas H, and Travlos I. Early detection, herbicide resistance screening, and integrated management of invasive plant species: a review. Pest Management Science 2022;78:3957–72

    2022

  2. [10]

    Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide- resistant weed management

    Green JM and Owen MD. Herbicide-resistant crops: utilities and limitations for herbicide- resistant weed management. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry 2011;59:5819–29

    2011

  3. [11]

    Genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and herbicide-resistant weed evo- lution in the United States

    Kniss AR. Genetically engineered herbicide-resistant crops and herbicide-resistant weed evo- lution in the United States. Weed Science 2018;66:260–73

    2018

  4. [12]

    Comparing responses of sensitive and resistant popula- tions of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus var

    Lillie K, Giacomini D, and Tranel P. Comparing responses of sensitive and resistant popula- tions of Palmer amaranth (Amaranthus palmeri) and waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus var. rudis) to PPO inhibitors. Weed technology 2020;34:140–6

    2020

  5. [13]

    Weed Science Society of America Database

    Weed Science Society of America. Weed Science Society of America Database. https://www. weedscience.org/Home.aspx. Accessed: 2025-02-11

    2025

  6. [14]

    Weed identification and integrated control

    Wang P, Peteinatos G, Efthimiadou A, and Ma W. Weed identification and integrated control. 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Advancements and developments in the detection and control of invasive weeds: A global review of the current challenges and future opportunities

    Roberts J and Florentine S. Advancements and developments in the detection and control of invasive weeds: A global review of the current challenges and future opportunities. Weed Science 2024:1–29

    2024

  8. [16]

    Invaders in disguise

    Verloove F. Invaders in disguise. Conservation risks derived from misidentification of invasive plants. Management of Biological invasions 2010:1–5. 42

    2010

  9. [17]

    Invasive plants with native lookalikes: How mistaken identities can lead to more significant plant invasions and delay management

    Marble SC and Brown SH. Invasive plants with native lookalikes: How mistaken identities can lead to more significant plant invasions and delay management. HortTechnology 2021;31:385– 94

    2021

  10. [18]

    Weed and corn seedling detection in field based on multi feature fusion and support vector machine

    Chen Y, Wu Z, Zhao B, Fan C, and Shi S. Weed and corn seedling detection in field based on multi feature fusion and support vector machine. Sensors 2020;21:212

    2020

  11. [19]

    Fully-automatic natural plant recognition system using deep neural network for dynamic outdoor environments

    Fathi Kazerouni M, Mohammed Saeed NT, and Kuhnert KD. Fully-automatic natural plant recognition system using deep neural network for dynamic outdoor environments. SN Applied Sciences 2019;1:756

    2019

  12. [20]

    The rationale for monitoring invasive plant populations as a crucial step for management

    Maxwell BD, Lehnhoff E, and Rew LJ. The rationale for monitoring invasive plant populations as a crucial step for management. Invasive Plant Science and Management 2009;2:1–9

    2009

  13. [21]

    Biology, ecology and management of the invasive parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) Pest management science 2014;70:1023–9

    Adkins S and Shabbir A. Biology, ecology and management of the invasive parthenium weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) Pest management science 2014;70:1023–9

    2014

  14. [22]

    A comprehensive survey on weed and crop classification using machine learning and deep learning

    Adhinata FD, Sumiharto R, et al. A comprehensive survey on weed and crop classification using machine learning and deep learning. Artificial intelligence in agriculture 2024

    2024

  15. [23]

    A Comprehensive Survey of Weed Detection and Classi- fication Datasets for Precision Agriculture

    Khaire P, Attar V, and Kalamkar S. A Comprehensive Survey of Weed Detection and Classi- fication Datasets for Precision Agriculture. In: 2023 14th International Conference on Com- puting Communication and Networking Technologies (ICCCNT) . IEEE. 2023:1–5

    2023

  16. [24]

    Weed detection using deep learning: A systematic literature review

    Murad NY, Mahmood T, Forkan ARM, Morshed A, Jayaraman PP, and Siddiqui MS. Weed detection using deep learning: A systematic literature review. Sensors 2023;23:3670

    2023

  17. [25]

    Deep learning techniques to clas- sify agricultural crops through UAV imagery: A review

    Bouguettaya A, Zarzour H, Kechida A, and Taberkit AM. Deep learning techniques to clas- sify agricultural crops through UAV imagery: A review. Neural computing and applications 2022;34:9511–36

    2022

  18. [26]

    Advances in ground robotic technologies for site- specific weed management in precision agriculture: A review

    Upadhyay A, Zhang Y, Koparan C, et al. Advances in ground robotic technologies for site- specific weed management in precision agriculture: A review. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2024;225:109363

    2024

  19. [27]

    url: https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/what-are-invasive-species

    2025. url: https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/what-are-invasive-species

    2025

  20. [28]

    Revolutionizing agriculture with artificial intelligence: plant disease detection methods, applications, and their limitations

    Jafar A, Bibi N, Naqvi RA, Sadeghi-Niaraki A, and Jeong D. Revolutionizing agriculture with artificial intelligence: plant disease detection methods, applications, and their limitations. Frontiers in Plant Science 2024;15:1356260

    2024

  21. [29]

    Plant disease detection and classification by deep learning—a review

    Li L, Zhang S, and Wang B. Plant disease detection and classification by deep learning—a review. IEEE Access 2021;9:56683–98

    2021

  22. [30]

    Plant leaf disease detection, classification, and diagnosis using computer vision and artificial intelli- gence: A review

    Bhargava A, Shukla A, Goswami OP, Alsharif MH, Uthansakul P, and Uthansakul M. Plant leaf disease detection, classification, and diagnosis using computer vision and artificial intelli- gence: A review. IEEE access 2024;12:37443–69

    2024

  23. [31]

    Artificial- intelligence and sensing techniques for the management of insect pests and diseases in cotton: a systematic literature review

    Toscano-Miranda R, Toro M, Aguilar J, Caro M, Marulanda A, and Trebilcok A. Artificial- intelligence and sensing techniques for the management of insect pests and diseases in cotton: a systematic literature review. The Journal of Agricultural Science 2022;160:16–31

    2022

  24. [32]

    InsectNet: Real-time identification of insects using an end-to-end machine learning pipeline

    Chiranjeevi S, Saadati M, Deng ZK, et al. InsectNet: Real-time identification of insects using an end-to-end machine learning pipeline. PNAS nexus 2025;4:pgae575. 43

    2025

  25. [33]

    Development and evaluation of a low-cost and smart technology for precision weed management utilizing artificial intelligence

    Partel V, Kakarla SC, and Ampatzidis Y. Development and evaluation of a low-cost and smart technology for precision weed management utilizing artificial intelligence. Computers and electronics in agriculture 2019;157:339–50

    2019

  26. [34]

    Deep learning in image-based plant phenotyping

    Murphy KM, Ludwig E, Gutierrez J, and Gehan MA. Deep learning in image-based plant phenotyping. Annual Review of Plant Biology 2024;75

    2024

  27. [35]

    Weed database development: An updated survey of public weed datasets and cross-season weed detection adaptation

    Deng B, Lu Y, and Xu J. Weed database development: An updated survey of public weed datasets and cross-season weed detection adaptation. Ecological Informatics 2024;81:102546

    2024

  28. [36]

    Identification of weeds based on hyperspectral imaging and machine learning

    Li Y, Al-Sarayreh M, Irie K, et al. Identification of weeds based on hyperspectral imaging and machine learning. Frontiers in Plant Science 2021;11:611622

    2021

  29. [37]

    Pre-harvest weed mapping of Cirsium arvense L

    Rasmussen J, Azim S, and Nielsen J. Pre-harvest weed mapping of Cirsium arvense L. based on free satellite imagery–The importance of weed aggregation and image resolution. European Journal of Agronomy 2021;130:126373

    2021

  30. [38]

    Using single- and multi-date UAV and satellite imagery to accurately monitor invasive knotweed species

    Martin FM, M¨ ullerov´ a J, Borgniet L, Dommanget F, Breton V, and Evette A. Using single- and multi-date UAV and satellite imagery to accurately monitor invasive knotweed species. Remote Sensing 2018;10:1662

    2018

  31. [39]

    PlantCLEF2023: A Bigger Training Dataset Contributes More than Advanced Pretraining Methods for Plant Identification

    Xu M, Yoon S, Wu C, Baek J, and Park DS. PlantCLEF2023: A Bigger Training Dataset Contributes More than Advanced Pretraining Methods for Plant Identification. In: CLEF (Working Notes). 2023:2168–80

    2023

  32. [40]

    Overview of PlantCLEF 2023: image-based plant identifica- tion at global scale

    Go¨ eau H, Bonnet P, and Joly A. Overview of PlantCLEF 2023: image-based plant identifica- tion at global scale. In:CLEF 2023 Working Notes-24th Conference and Labs of the Evaluation Forum. Vol. 3497. 2023:1972–81

    2023

  33. [41]

    Overview of lifeclef 2024: Challenges on species distribution prediction and identification

    Joly A, Picek L, Kahl S, et al. Overview of lifeclef 2024: Challenges on species distribution prediction and identification. In: International Conference of the Cross-Language Evaluation Forum for European Languages. Springer. 2024:183–207

    2024

  34. [42]

    Weed detection to weed recognition: reviewing 50 years of research to identify constraints and opportunities for large-scale cropping systems

    Coleman GR, Bender A, Hu K, et al. Weed detection to weed recognition: reviewing 50 years of research to identify constraints and opportunities for large-scale cropping systems. Weed Technology 2022;36:741–57

    2022

  35. [43]

    A survey of public datasets for computer vision tasks in precision agricul- ture

    Lu Y and Young S. A survey of public datasets for computer vision tasks in precision agricul- ture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2020;178:105760

    2020

  36. [44]

    A novel automated cloud-based image datasets for high throughput phenotyping in weed classification

    Sunil G, Koparan C, Upadhyay A, et al. A novel automated cloud-based image datasets for high throughput phenotyping in weed classification. Data in Brief 2024;57:111097

    2024

  37. [45]

    Automated approaches for the early stage distinguishing of Palmer amaranth from waterhemp

    Venkataraju A, Arumugam D, Kiran R, and Peters T. Automated approaches for the early stage distinguishing of Palmer amaranth from waterhemp. Frontiers in Agronomy 2024;6:1425425

    2024

  38. [46]

    Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France

    Fried G, Norton LR, and Reboud X. Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 2008;128:68–76

    2008

  39. [47]

    Observation: 180115803

    iNaturalist. Observation: 180115803. Accessed: 2025-05-23. 2023. url: https://www.inaturalist. org/observations/180115803. 44

    2025

  40. [48]

    White E, Soltis PS, Soltis DE, and Guralnick R. Quantifying error in occurrence data: Com- paring the data quality of iNaturalist and digitized herbarium specimen data in flowering plant families of the southeastern United States. Plos one 2023;18:e0295298

    2023

  41. [49]

    Classification of crops and weeds from digital images: A support vector machine approach

    Ahmed F, Al-Mamun HA, Bari AH, Hossain E, and Kwan P. Classification of crops and weeds from digital images: A support vector machine approach. Crop Protection 2012;40:98–104

    2012

  42. [50]

    Evaluation of support vector machine and artificial neural networks in weed detection using shape features

    Bakhshipour A and Jafari A. Evaluation of support vector machine and artificial neural networks in weed detection using shape features. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2018;145:153–60

    2018

  43. [51]

    Identification of weeds in sugarcane fields through images taken by UAV and Random Forest classifier

    Yano IH, Alves JR, Santiago WE, and Mederos BJ. Identification of weeds in sugarcane fields through images taken by UAV and Random Forest classifier. IFAC-PapersOnLine 2016;49:415– 20

    2016

  44. [52]

    Performance evaluation of deep transfer learning on multi- class identification of common weed species in cotton production systems

    Chen D, Lu Y, Li Z, and Young S. Performance evaluation of deep transfer learning on multi- class identification of common weed species in cotton production systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2022;198:107091

    2022

  45. [53]

    Graph weeds net: A graph-based deep learn- ing method for weed recognition

    Hu K, Coleman G, Zeng S, Wang Z, and Walsh M. Graph weeds net: A graph-based deep learn- ing method for weed recognition. Computers and electronics in agriculture 2020;174:105520

    2020

  46. [54]

    Deep-cnn based robotic multi-class under-canopy weed control in precision farming

    Du Y, Zhang G, Tsang D, and Jawed MK. Deep-cnn based robotic multi-class under-canopy weed control in precision farming. In: 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA). IEEE. 2022:2273–9

    2022

  47. [55]

    DeepWeeds: A multiclass weed species image dataset for deep learning

    Olsen A, Konovalov DA, Philippa B, et al. DeepWeeds: A multiclass weed species image dataset for deep learning. Scientific reports 2019;9:2058

    2019

  48. [56]

    A novel semi-supervised framework for UAV based crop/weed classification

    Khan S, Tufail M, Khan MT, Khan ZA, Iqbal J, and Alam M. A novel semi-supervised framework for UAV based crop/weed classification. Plos one 2021;16:e0251008

    2021

  49. [57]

    Semi-supervised learning for weed and crop segmentation using UAV imagery

    Nong C, Fan X, and Wang J. Semi-supervised learning for weed and crop segmentation using UAV imagery. Frontiers in Plant Science 2022;13:927368

    2022

  50. [58]

    Reducing domain gap by reducing style bias

    Nam H, Lee H, Park J, Yoon W, and Yoo D. Reducing domain gap by reducing style bias. Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2021:8690–9

    2021

  51. [59]

    Attention is all you need

    Vaswani A, Shazeer N, Parmar N, et al. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems 2017;30

    2017

  52. [60]

    Development and testing of an image transformer for explainable autonomous driving systems

    Dong J, Chen S, Miralinaghi M, Chen T, and Labi S. Development and testing of an image transformer for explainable autonomous driving systems. Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles 2022;5:235–49

    2022

  53. [61]

    FormerLeaf: An efficient vision transformer for Cassava Leaf Disease detection

    Thai HT, Le KH, and Nguyen NLT. FormerLeaf: An efficient vision transformer for Cassava Leaf Disease detection. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2023;204:107518

    2023

  54. [62]

    Safety and trustworthiness of deep neural networks: A survey

    Huang X, Kroening D, Kwiatkowska M, et al. Safety and trustworthiness of deep neural networks: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08342 2018:151. 45

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Trust, but verify: Using self-supervised probing to improve trustworthiness

    Deng A, Li S, Xiong M, Chen Z, and Hooi B. Trust, but verify: Using self-supervised probing to improve trustworthiness. In:European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer. 2022:361– 77

    2022

  56. [64]

    How useful is active learning for image-based plant phenotyping? The Plant Phenome Journal 2021;4:e20020

    Nagasubramanian K, Jubery T, Fotouhi Ardakani F, et al. How useful is active learning for image-based plant phenotyping? The Plant Phenome Journal 2021;4:e20020

    2021

  57. [65]

    Changes in functional diversity and intraspecific trait variability of weeds in response to crop sequences and climate

    Borgy B, Perronne R, Kohler C, Grison AL, Amiaud B, and Gaba S. Changes in functional diversity and intraspecific trait variability of weeds in response to crop sequences and climate. Weed Research 2016;56:102–13

    2016

  58. [66]

    The evolution of weeds

    Baker HG. The evolution of weeds. Annual review of ecology and systematics 1974:1–24

    1974

  59. [67]

    Matching the origin of an invasive weed for selection of a herbivore haplotype for a biological control programme

    Goolsby JA, De Barro PJ, Makinson JR, Pemberton RW, Hartley DM, and Frohlich DR. Matching the origin of an invasive weed for selection of a herbivore haplotype for a biological control programme. Molecular Ecology 2006;15:287–97

    2006

  60. [68]

    Herbicides: Environmental Impact Studies and Management Approaches

    Alvarez-Fernandez R. Herbicides: Environmental Impact Studies and Management Approaches. BoD–Books on Demand, 2012

    2012

  61. [69]

    Divergence time and environmental similarity predict the strength of morphological convergence in stick and leaf insects

    Boisseau RP, Bradler S, and Emlen DJ. Divergence time and environmental similarity predict the strength of morphological convergence in stick and leaf insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2025;122:e2319485121

    2025

  62. [70]

    Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes: An Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic

    Treher A, Lenny Wilson RN, and Kuehn FB. Invasive Plants and their Native Look-alikes: An Identification Guide for the Mid-Atlantic. https://www.nybg.org/files/scientists/ rnaczi/Mistaken_Identity_Final.pdf. Accessed: 2024-07-16. 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    Integrative analysis of chloroplast genome, chemicals, and illustrations in Bencao literature provides insights into the medicinal value of Peucedanum huangshanense

    Sun H, Chu S, Jiang L, et al. Integrative analysis of chloroplast genome, chemicals, and illustrations in Bencao literature provides insights into the medicinal value of Peucedanum huangshanense. Frontiers in Plant Science 2023;14:1179915

    2023

  64. [72]

    Know Your Foxtail

    University of Maryland Extension. Know Your Foxtail. https : / / extension . umd . edu / resource/know-your-foxtails-fs-2023-0658 . Accessed: 2025-02-11. 2023

    2023

  65. [73]

    Witchweed (Striga asiatica): an overview of management strategies in the USA

    Eplee RE. Witchweed (Striga asiatica): an overview of management strategies in the USA. Crop Protection 1992;11:3–7

    1992

  66. [74]

    Predicting Kudzu (Pueraria mon- tana) spread and its economic impacts in timber industry: A case study from Oklahoma

    Harron P, Joshi O, Edgar CB, Paudel S, and Adhikari A. Predicting Kudzu (Pueraria mon- tana) spread and its economic impacts in timber industry: A case study from Oklahoma. PloS one 2020;15:e0229835

    2020

  67. [75]

    The economic cost of invasive non-native species on Great Britain

    Williams F, Eschen R, Harris A, et al. The economic cost of invasive non-native species on Great Britain. CABI Proj No VM10066 2010;199

    2010

  68. [76]

    Evaluation of foliar-applied post-emergence corn–soybean herbicides on giant ragweed and waterhemp control in Wisconsin

    Werle R, Mobli A, DeWerff RP, and Arneson NJ. Evaluation of foliar-applied post-emergence corn–soybean herbicides on giant ragweed and waterhemp control in Wisconsin. Agrosystems, Geosciences & Environment 2023;6:e20338

    2023

  69. [77]

    Biology and management of the spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae), in the United States

    Urban JM and Leach H. Biology and management of the spotted lanternfly, Lycorma delicatula (Hemiptera: Fulgoridae), in the United States. Annual Review of Entomology 2023;68:151–67. 46

    2023

  70. [78]

    European buckthorn and Asian soybean aphid as components of an extensive invasional meltdown in North America

    Heimpel GE, Frelich LE, Landis DA, et al. European buckthorn and Asian soybean aphid as components of an extensive invasional meltdown in North America. Biological Invasions 2010;12:2913–31

    2010

  71. [79]

    Lack of transmission of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in Florida from Columbus grass and sugarcane to sugarcane with aphids or mites

    Boukari W, Wei C, Tang L, et al. Lack of transmission of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in Florida from Columbus grass and sugarcane to sugarcane with aphids or mites. PLoS One 2020;15:e0230066

    2020

  72. [80]

    Stem rust on barberry species in Europe: Host specificities and genetic diversity

    Rodriguez-Algaba J, Hovmøller MS, Schulz P, et al. Stem rust on barberry species in Europe: Host specificities and genetic diversity. Frontiers in Genetics 2022;13:988031

    2022

  73. [81]

    Ecology and management of kudzu bug (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in Southeastern soybeans

    Lahiri S and Reisig DD. Ecology and management of kudzu bug (Hemiptera: Plataspidae) in Southeastern soybeans. Journal of Integrated Pest Management 2016;7:14

    2016

  74. [82]

    Challenges in deploying machine learning: a survey of case studies

    Paleyes A, Urma RG, and Lawrence ND. Challenges in deploying machine learning: a survey of case studies. ACM computing surveys 2022;55:1–29

    2022

  75. [83]

    Cyber-agricultural systems for crop breed- ing and sustainable production

    Sarkar S, Ganapathysubramanian B, Singh A, et al. Cyber-agricultural systems for crop breed- ing and sustainable production. Trends in Plant Science 2024;29:130–49

    2024

  76. [84]

    Plant Identification Apps: Not All Are Created Equal

    Program MSUEIP. Plant Identification Apps: Not All Are Created Equal. Accessed: 2025- 04-17. 2022. url: https : / / www . montana . edu / extension / invasiveplants / extension / monthly-weed-posts/2022-april-plant-identification-apps.html

    2025

  77. [85]

    Plant identification? There’s an app for that – actually several

    Extension MSU. Plant identification? There’s an app for that – actually several. https:// www.canr.msu.edu/news/plant-identification-theres-an-app-for-that-actually- several. Accessed: 2025-03-16. 2024

    2025

  78. [86]

    Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts

    Koh PW, Sagawa S, Marklund H, et al. Wilds: A benchmark of in-the-wild distribution shifts. In: International conference on machine learning . PMLR. 2021:5637–64

    2021

  79. [87]

    Thomas unterthiner mostafa dehghani matthias minderer georg heigold sylvain gelly jakob uszkoreit and neil houlsby

    Dosovitskiy A, Beyer L, Kolesnikov A, Weissenborn D, and Zhai X. Thomas unterthiner mostafa dehghani matthias minderer georg heigold sylvain gelly jakob uszkoreit and neil houlsby. An image isworth 16 × 16 words: transformers for image recognition atscale. In: International Co...

    2021

  80. [88]

    A survey of transfer learning

    Weiss K, Khoshgoftaar TM, and Wang D. A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big data 2016;3:1–40

    2016

  81. [89]

    CNN features off-the-shelf: an astounding baseline for recognition

    Sharif Razavian A, Azizpour H, Sullivan J, and Carlsson S. CNN features off-the-shelf: an astounding baseline for recognition. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition workshops. 2014:806–13

    2014

  82. [90]

    iNaturalist: Observations and User Statistics

    iNaturalist. iNaturalist: Observations and User Statistics. Accessed: 2025-03-16. 2025. url: https://www.inaturalist.org/stats

    2025

  83. [91]

    Invasive Species Profiles List

    National Invasive Species Information Center. Invasive Species Profiles List. Accessed: 2024- 07-16. 2024. url: https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/species-profiles-list

    2024

  84. [92]

    Midwest Invasive Plant List

    Midwest Invasive Plant Network. Midwest Invasive Plant List. https://mipn.org/invasive- plant-list/. Accessed: 2025-02-11. 2023. 47

    2025

  85. [93]

    Invasive and Exotic Weeds

    Invasive Species Web Portal. Invasive and Exotic Weeds. https : / / www . invasive . org / species/weeds.cfm. Accessed: 2025-02-11. 2023

    2025

  86. [94]

    Revisiting weakly supervised pre-training of visual perception models

    Singh M, Gustafson L, Adcock A, et al. Revisiting weakly supervised pre-training of visual perception models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2022:804–14

    2022

  87. [95]

    Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining

    Mahajan D, Girshick R, Ramanathan V, et al. Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). 2018:181– 96

    2018

  88. [96]

    Learning useful representations in a deep network with a local denoising criterion, Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Isabelle Lajoie, Yoshua Bengio and Pierre-Antoine Manzagol

    Autoencoders SD. Learning useful representations in a deep network with a local denoising criterion, Pascal Vincent, Hugo Larochelle, Isabelle Lajoie, Yoshua Bengio and Pierre-Antoine Manzagol. J. Mach. Learn. Res. ll 2010:3371–408

    2010

  89. [97]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Chen T, Kornblith S, Norouzi M, and Hinton G. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In: International conference on machine learning . PMLR. 2020:1597– 607

    2020

  90. [98]

    Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture

    Assran M, Duval Q, Misra I, et al. Self-supervised learning from images with a joint-embedding predictive architecture. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2023:15619–29

    2023

  91. [99]

    ibot: Image bert pre-training with online tokenizer

    Zhou J, Wei C, Wang H, et al. ibot: Image bert pre-training with online tokenizer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.07832 2021

    2021 arXiv

  92. [100]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale

    Dosovitskiy A. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929 2020

    2010 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers

    Bao H, Dong L, Piao S, and Wei F. Beit: Bert pre-training of image transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08254 2021

    2021 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    He K, Chen X, Xie S, Li Y, Doll´ ar P, and Girshick R. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2022:16000–9

    2022

  95. [103]

    Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training

    Tong Z, Song Y, Wang J, and Wang L. Videomae: Masked autoencoders are data-efficient learners for self-supervised video pre-training. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems 2022;35:10078–93

    2022

  96. [104]

    Omnimae: Single model masked pretraining on images and videos

    Girdhar R, El-Nouby A, Singh M, Alwala KV, Joulin A, and Misra I. Omnimae: Single model masked pretraining on images and videos. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023:10406–17

    2023

  97. [105]

    Weed Identification Field Guide, 2nd Edition

    Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. Weed Identification Field Guide, 2nd Edition. A reference for identifying weeds in field crops. Iowa State University, 2024. url: https : //store.extension.iastate.edu/product/Weed- Identification- Field- Guide- 2nd- Edition

    2024

  98. [106]

    Does your dermatology classifier know what it doesn’t know? detecting the long-tail of unseen conditions

    Roy AG, Ren J, Azizi S, et al. Does your dermatology classifier know what it doesn’t know? detecting the long-tail of unseen conditions. Medical Image Analysis 2022;75:102274. 48

    2022

  99. [107]

    Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure

    Hendrycks D, Mazeika M, and Dietterich T. Deep anomaly detection with outlier exposure. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04606 2018

    2018 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection

    Ren J, Liu PJ, Fertig E, et al. Likelihood ratios for out-of-distribution detection. Advances in neural information processing systems 2019;32

    2019

  101. [109]

    Energy-based out-of-distribution detection

    Liu W, Wang X, Owens J, and Li Y. Energy-based out-of-distribution detection. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2020;33:21464–75

    2020

  102. [110]

    A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks

    Hendrycks D and Gimpel K. A baseline for detecting misclassified and out-of-distribution examples in neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02136 2016

    2016 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Out-of-Distribution Detection Algorithms for Robust Insect Classification

    Saadati M, Balu A, Chiranjeevi S, et al. Out-of-Distribution Detection Algorithms for Robust Insect Classification. Plant Phenomics 2024;6:0170

    2024

  104. [112]

    Masked face recognition dataset and application

    Wang Z, Wang G, Huang B, et al. Masked face recognition dataset and application. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.09093 2020

    2003 arXiv

  105. [113]

    ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge

    Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, et al. ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV) 2015;115:211–52

    2015

  106. [114]

    Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction

    Angelopoulos AN, Bates S, et al. Conformal prediction: A gentle introduction. Foundations and Trends® in Machine Learning 2023;16:494–591

    2023

  107. [115]

    Deep learning powered real-time identification of insects using citizen science data

    Chiranjeevi S, Sadaati M, Deng ZK, et al. Deep learning powered real-time identification of insects using citizen science data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02507 2023

    2023 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Know Your Foxtails

    University of Maryland Extension. Know Your Foxtails. Accessed: 2025-01-24. 2023. url: https://extension.umd.edu/resource/know-your-foxtails-fs-2023-0658/

    2025

  109. [117]

    Keys to Identifying Palmer Amaranth and Waterhemp

    University of Maryland Extension. Keys to Identifying Palmer Amaranth and Waterhemp. Ac- cessed: 2025-01-24. 2023. url: https://extension.umd.edu/resource/keys-identifying- palmer-amaranth-and-waterhemp-fs-2023-0653/

    2025

  110. [118]

    Identification of Amaranthus species using visible-near- infrared (vis-NIR) spectroscopy and machine learning methods

    Sohn SI, Oh YJ, Pandian S, et al. Identification of Amaranthus species using visible-near- infrared (vis-NIR) spectroscopy and machine learning methods. Remote Sensing 2021;13:4149

    2021

  111. [119]

    Dead Nettle, Henbit, and Ground Ivy: Three Look-Alike Weeds

    Penn State Extension. Dead Nettle, Henbit, and Ground Ivy: Three Look-Alike Weeds. Ac- cessed: 2025-01-24. url: https://extension.psu.edu/dead-nettle-henbit-and-ground- ivy-three-look-alike-weeds

    2025

  112. [120]

    https: //pestid.github.io

    PestIDBot: An Integrated Solution for End-to-End Agricultural Pest Management. https: //pestid.github.io. Accessed: 2024-11-16. 2024

    2024

  113. [121]

    Herbarium collections remain essential in the age of community science

    Eckert I, Bruneau A, Metsger DA, Joly S, Dickinson T, and Pollock LJ. Herbarium collections remain essential in the age of community science. Nature Communications 2024;15:7586

    2024

  114. [122]

    InsectNet: Real-time identification of insects using an end-to-end machine learning pipeline

    Chiranjeevi S, Saadati M, Deng ZK, et al. InsectNet: Real-time identification of insects using an end-to-end machine learning pipeline. PNAS Nexus 2024;4:pgae575

    2024

  115. [123]

    Weed-AI: A Repository of Weed Images in Crops

    Group PWC and Hub SI. Weed-AI: A Repository of Weed Images in Crops. https://weed- ai.sydney.edu.au/. Accessed: 2025-01-20. 2025. 49

    2025

  116. [124]

    YOLOWeeds: A novel benchmark of YOLO object detectors for multi-class weed detection in cotton production systems

    Dang F, Chen D, Lu Y, and Li Z. YOLOWeeds: A novel benchmark of YOLO object detectors for multi-class weed detection in cotton production systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2023;205:107655

    2023

  117. [125]

    Configuration and specifications of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for early site specific weed manage- ment

    Torres-S´ anchez J, L´ opez-Granados F, De Castro AI, and Pe˜ na-Barrag´ an JM. Configuration and specifications of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for early site specific weed manage- ment. PloS one 2013;8:e58210

    2013

  118. [126]

    Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge

    Russakovsky O, Deng J, Su H, et al. Imagenet large scale visual recognition challenge. Inter- national journal of computer vision 2015;115:211–52

    2015

  119. [127]

    Transfer and zero-shot learning for scalable weed detection and classification in UAV images

    Belissent N, Pe˜ na JM, Mes´ ıas-Ruiz GA, Shawe-Taylor J, and P´ erez-Ortiz M. Transfer and zero-shot learning for scalable weed detection and classification in UAV images. Knowledge- Based Systems 2024;292:111586

    2024

  120. [128]

    CottonWeeds: Empowering precision weed management through deep learning and comprehensive dataset

    Saini P and Nagesh D. CottonWeeds: Empowering precision weed management through deep learning and comprehensive dataset. Crop Protection 2024;181:106675

    2024

  121. [129]

    A w-shaped convolutional net- work for robust crop and weed classification in agriculture

    Moazzam SI, Nawaz T, Qureshi WS, Khan US, and Tiwana MI. A w-shaped convolutional net- work for robust crop and weed classification in agriculture. Precision Agriculture 2023;24:2002– 18

    2023

  122. [130]

    Semantic segmentation of crop and weed using an encoder- decoder network and image enhancement method under uncontrolled outdoor illumination

    Wang A, Xu Y, Wei X, and Cui B. Semantic segmentation of crop and weed using an encoder- decoder network and image enhancement method under uncontrolled outdoor illumination. Ieee Access 2020;8:81724–34

    2020

  123. [131]

    Encoder–decoder architecture for crop-weed classification using pixel-wise labelling

    Umamaheswari S and Jain AV. Encoder–decoder architecture for crop-weed classification using pixel-wise labelling. In: 2020 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Signal Processing (AISP). IEEE. 2020:1–6

    2020

  124. [132]

    A survey of deep learning techniques for weed detection from images

    Hasan AM, Sohel F, Diepeveen D, Laga H, and Jones MG. A survey of deep learning techniques for weed detection from images. Computers and electronics in agriculture 2021;184:106067

    2021

  125. [133]

    A Review of Yolo algorithm developments

    Jiang P, Ergu D, Liu F, Cai Y, and Ma B. A Review of Yolo algorithm developments. Procedia computer science 2022;199:1066–73

    2022

  126. [134]

    Microsoft coco: Common objects in context

    Lin TY, Maire M, Belongie S, et al. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. In: Computer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13. Springer. 2014:740–55

    2014

  127. [135]

    Objects365: A large-scale, high-quality dataset for object detection

    Shao S, Li Z, Zhang T, et al. Objects365: A large-scale, high-quality dataset for object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision . 2019:8430–9

    2019

  128. [136]

    Rethinking the value of labels for improving class-imbalanced learning

    Yang Y and Xu Z. Rethinking the value of labels for improving class-imbalanced learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 2020;33:19290–301

    2020

  129. [137]

    Interclass similarity transfer for imbalanced aerial scene classi- fication

    Jing C, Huang L, Cai S, et al. Interclass similarity transfer for imbalanced aerial scene classi- fication. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters 2023;20:1–5. 50

    2023

  130. [138]

    An empirical comparison on state-of-the-art multi-class imbalance learn- ing algorithms and a new diversified ensemble learning scheme

    Bi J and Zhang C. An empirical comparison on state-of-the-art multi-class imbalance learn- ing algorithms and a new diversified ensemble learning scheme. Knowledge-Based Systems 2018;158:81–93

    2018

  131. [139]

    Learning deep representation for imbalanced classifi- cation

    Huang C, Li Y, Loy CC, and Tang X. Learning deep representation for imbalanced classifi- cation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 2016:5375–84

    2016

  132. [140]

    Relay backpropagation for effective learning of deep convolutional neural networks

    Shen L, Lin Z, and Huang Q. Relay backpropagation for effective learning of deep convolutional neural networks. In: Computer Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceedings, Part VII 14 . Springer. 2016:467–82

    2016

  133. [141]

    Selecting patterns and features for between-and within-crop-row weed mapping using UAV-imagery

    Perez-Ortiz M, Pena JM, Gutierrez PA, Torres-Sanchez J, Hervas-Martinez C, and Lopez- Granados F. Selecting patterns and features for between-and within-crop-row weed mapping using UAV-imagery. Expert Systems with Applications 2016;47:85–94

    2016

  134. [142]

    Weed identification in maize, sunflower, and potatoes with the aid of convolutional neural networks

    Peteinatos GG, Reichel P, Karouta J, And´ ujar D, and Gerhards R. Weed identification in maize, sunflower, and potatoes with the aid of convolutional neural networks. Remote Sensing 2020;12:4185

    2020

  135. [143]

    Ensemble deep learning models for fine-grained plant species identification

    Malik OA, Faisal M, and Hussein BR. Ensemble deep learning models for fine-grained plant species identification. In: 2021 IEEE Asia-Pacific Conference on Computer Science and Data Engineering (CSDE). IEEE. 2021:1–6

    2021

  136. [144]

    Softmax dissection: Towards understanding intra-and inter- class objective for embedding learning

    He L, Wang Z, Li Y, and Wang S. Softmax dissection: Towards understanding intra-and inter- class objective for embedding learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. Vol. 34. 07. 2020:10957–64

    2020

  137. [145]

    Quan- tifying efficacy and limits of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for weed seedling detection as affected by sensor resolution

    Pe˜ na JM, Torres-S´ anchez J, Serrano-P´ erez A, De Castro AI, and L´ opez-Granados F. Quan- tifying efficacy and limits of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technology for weed seedling detection as affected by sensor resolution. Sensors 2015;15:5609–26

    2015

  138. [146]

    UAV low-altitude remote sensing for precision weed management

    Huang Y, Reddy KN, Fletcher RS, and Pennington D. UAV low-altitude remote sensing for precision weed management. Weed technology 2018;32:2–6

    2018

  139. [147]

    A comparison review of transfer learn- ing and self-supervised learning: Definitions, applications, advantages and limitations

    Zhao Z, Alzubaidi L, Zhang J, Duan Y, and Gu Y. A comparison review of transfer learn- ing and self-supervised learning: Definitions, applications, advantages and limitations. Expert Systems with Applications 2024;242:122807

    2024

  140. [148]

    From explanations to segmentation: using explainable AI for image segmentation

    Seibold C, K¨ unzel J, Hilsmann A, and Eisert P. From explanations to segmentation: using explainable AI for image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00315 2022

    2022 arXiv

  141. [149]

    ID Tools - Interactive Identification Tools

    USDA APHIS. ID Tools - Interactive Identification Tools. Accessed: 2025-03-16. 2025. url: https://idtools.org/identify.cfm?sort=dateDesc

    2025

  142. [150]

    Manually annotated and curated Dataset of diverse Weed Species in Maize and Sorghum for Computer Vision

    Genze N, Vahl WK, Groth J, Wirth M, Grieb M, and Grimm DG. Manually annotated and curated Dataset of diverse Weed Species in Maize and Sorghum for Computer Vision. Scientific Data 2024;11:109. 51

    2024

  143. [151]

    The cropandweed dataset: A multi-modal learning approach for efficient crop and weed manipulation

    Steininger D, Trondl A, Croonen G, Simon J, and Widhalm V. The cropandweed dataset: A multi-modal learning approach for efficient crop and weed manipulation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision . 2023:3729–38

    2023

  144. [152]

    Weed25: A deep learning dataset for weed identification

    Wang P, Tang Y, Luo F, et al. Weed25: A deep learning dataset for weed identification. Frontiers in Plant Science 2022;13:1053329

    2022

  145. [153]

    Weed detection in soybean crops using ConvNets

    Santos Ferreira A dos, Freitas DM, Silva GG da, Pistori H, and Folhes MT. Weed detection in soybean crops using ConvNets. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2017;143:314–24. 52

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.