3.9 Article

A computer vision system for defect discrimination and grading in tomatoes using machine learning and image processing

Journal

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN AGRICULTURE
Volume 2, Issue -, Pages 28-37

Publisher

KEAI PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.aiia.2019.06.001

Keywords

Grading; Calyx; Defected; Recognition models; Machine vision

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China [KYGX201701]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

With large-scale production and the need for high-quality tomatoes to meet consumer and market standards criteria, have led to the need for an inline, accurate, reliable grading system during the post-harvest process. This study introduced a tomato grading machine vision system based on RGB images. The proposed system per-formed calyx and stalk scar detection at an average accuracy of 0.9515 for both defected and healthy tomatoes by histogram thresholding based on the mean g-r value of these regions of interest. Defected regions were detected by an RBF-SVM classifier using the LAB color-space pixel values. The model achieved an overall accuracy of 0.989 upon validation. Four grading categories recognition models were developed based on color and texture features. The RBF-SVM outperformed all the explored models with the highest accuracy of 0.9709 for healthy and defected category. However, the grading accuracy decreased as the number of grading categories increased. A combination of color and texture features achieved the highest accuracy in all the grading categories in image features evalu-ation. This proposed system can be used as an inline tomato sorting tool to ensure that quality standards are ad-hered to and maintained.& COPY; 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of KeAi Communications Co., Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available