Paper · 2021 · 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshops (ICCVW)

A Semi-self-supervised Learning Approach for Wheat Head Detection using Extremely Small Number of Labeled Samples

Keyhan Najafian; Alireza Ghanbari; Ian Stavness; et al.

3
claims
6
verbatim quotes
22
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Most of the success of deep learning is owed to supervised learning, where a large-scale annotated dataset is used for model training. However, developing such datasets is challenging. In this paper, we develop a semi-self-supervised learning approach for wheat head detection. The proposed method utilized a few short video clips and only one annotated image from each video clip of wheat fields to simulate a large computationally annotated dataset used for model building. Considering the domain gap be-tween the simulated and real images, we applied two do-main adaptation steps to alleviate the challenge of distributional shift. The resulting model achieved high performance when applied to real unannotated datasets. When fine-tuned on the dataset from the Global Wheat Head Detection Challenge, the performance was further improved. The model achieved a mean average precision of 0.827, where an over-lap of 50% or more between a predicted bounding box and ground truth was considered as a correct prediction. Al-though the utility of the proposed methodology was shown by applying it to wheat head detection, the proposed method is not limited to this application and could be used for other domains, such as detecting different crop types, alleviating the barrier of lack of large-scale annotated datasets in those domains.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 3

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The model achieved high performance on real unannotated wheat field datasets.

Outcome
high performancee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat Head Detection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“The resulting model achieved high performance when applied to real unannotated datasets.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 635–723 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fine tuning on the Global Wheat Head Detection Challenge dataset further improved performance.

Outcome
performancee0
Direction
improvede0
Comparator
Global Wheat Head Detection Challengee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat Head Detection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“When fine-tuned on the dataset from the Global Wheat Head Detection Challenge, the performance was further improved.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 724–840 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The wheat head detection model reached mean average precision of 0.827 at a bounding box overlap threshold of 50% or more.

Outcome
mean average precisione0
Value
0.827e0
Qualifier
50% or moree0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Wheat Head Detection”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 45–65 · show in text ↑
e0

“The model achieved a mean average precision of 0.827, where an over-lap of 50% or more between a predicted bounding box and ground truth was considered as a correct prediction.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 841–1017 · show in text ↑