Claim · model-written summary
Model 2.0 precision exceeded Faster R-CNN by 3.73%.
Not reportedTaxonMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingQualifier
Verbatim
e0“The precision, recall, and F1 value of Model 2.0 were increased by 3.73%, 3.55%, and 3.79%, respectively, and the false positive rate of Model 2.0 was reduced by 1.31% on average compared with the Faster R-CNN model”
Title
Chengshun Zhao; Longzhe Quan; Hailong Li; et al. Transactions of the ASABE 2020. doi:10.13031/trans.13389
Other claims from this paper (8)
- Method / resource Model 1.0 had the highest recall, 98.42%.
- Method / resource Model 1.0 reached 97.27% mAP for excellent kernels only.
- Method / resource Model 1.0 required fewer computer resources.
- Method / resource Model 2.0 recall exceeded Faster R-CNN by 3.55%.
- Method / resource Model 2.0 F1 exceeded Faster R-CNN by 3.79%.
- Method / resource Model 2.0 false positive rate was reduced by 1.31% versus Faster R-CNN.
- Method / resource Model 2.0 had the best overall performance among three variants.
- Method / resource Moderate model size gave the best kernel selection.