4.6 Article

AlexNet Convolutional Neural Network for Disease Detection and Classification of Tomato Leaf

期刊

ELECTRONICS
卷 11, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/electronics11060951

关键词

AlexNet modification; tomato diseases; leaf image; AI

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan, under MOST [110-2221-E-468-007, 110-2218-E-002-044]
  2. Ministry of Education [I109MD040]
  3. Asia University, Taiwan [107-ASIA-UMY-02]
  4. China Medical University Hospital, China Medical University, Taiwan [ASIA-110-CMUH-22, ASIA-108-CMUH-05, ASIA-106-CMUH-04, ASIA-105-CMUH-04]
  5. Universitas Muhammadiyah Yog-yakarta, Indonesia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The researchers successfully implemented a CNN model based on deep learning for predicting and classifying tomato diseases using leaf images on the Android platform. The results showed high accuracy and precision.
With limited retrieval of reserves and restricted capability in plant pathology, automation of processes becomes essential. All over the world, farmers are struggling to prevent various harm from bacteria or pathogens such as viruses, fungi, worms, protozoa, and insects. Deep learning is currently widely used across a wide range of applications, including desktop, web, and mobile. In this study, the authors attempt to implement the function of AlexNet modification architecture-based CNN on the Android platform to predict tomato diseases based on leaf image. A dataset with of 18,345 training data and 4,585 testing data was used to create the predictive model. The information is separated into ten labels for tomato leaf diseases, each with 64 x 64 RGB pixels. The best model using the Adam optimizer with a realizing rate of 0.0005, the number of epochs 75, batch size 128, and an uncompromising cross-entropy loss function, has a high model accuracy with an average of 98%, a strictness rate of 0.98, a recall value of 0.99, and an F1-count of 0.98 with a loss of 0.1331, so that the classification results are good and very precise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据