DDD: Discriminative Difficulty Distance for plant disease diagnosis
Authors:
Yuji Arima,
Satoshi Kagiwada,
Hitoshi Iyatomi
Abstract:
Recent studies on plant disease diagnosis using machine learning (ML) have highlighted concerns about the overestimated diagnostic performance due to inappropriate data partitioning, where training and test datasets are derived from the same source (domain). Plant disease diagnosis presents a challenging classification task, characterized by its fine-grained nature, vague symptoms, and the extensi…
▽ More
Recent studies on plant disease diagnosis using machine learning (ML) have highlighted concerns about the overestimated diagnostic performance due to inappropriate data partitioning, where training and test datasets are derived from the same source (domain). Plant disease diagnosis presents a challenging classification task, characterized by its fine-grained nature, vague symptoms, and the extensive variability of image features within each domain. In this study, we propose the concept of Discriminative Difficulty Distance (DDD), a novel metric designed to quantify the domain gap between training and test datasets while assessing the classification difficulty of test data. DDD provides a valuable tool for identifying insufficient diversity in training data, thus supporting the development of more diverse and robust datasets. We investigated multiple image encoders trained on different datasets and examined whether the distances between datasets, measured using low-dimensional representations generated by the encoders, are suitable as a DDD metric. The study utilized 244,063 plant disease images spanning four crops and 34 disease classes collected from 27 domains. As a result, we demonstrated that even if the test images are from different crops or diseases than those used to train the encoder, incorporating them allows the construction of a distance measure for a dataset that strongly correlates with the difficulty of diagnosis indicated by the disease classifier developed independently. Compared to the base encoder, pre-trained only on ImageNet21K, the correlation higher by 0.106 to 0.485, reaching a maximum of 0.909.
△ Less
Submitted 1 January, 2025;
originally announced January 2025.
Effect of Group Means on the Probability of Consensus
Authors:
Yoshiko Arima
Abstract:
In this study, groups who could not reach a consensus were investigated using the group polarization paradigm. The purpose was to explore the conditions leading to intragroup disagreement and attitude change following disagreement among 269 participants. Analysis indicated that the probability of consensus was low when the group means differed from the grand mean of the entire sample. When small d…
▽ More
In this study, groups who could not reach a consensus were investigated using the group polarization paradigm. The purpose was to explore the conditions leading to intragroup disagreement and attitude change following disagreement among 269 participants. Analysis indicated that the probability of consensus was low when the group means differed from the grand mean of the entire sample. When small differences among group members were found, depolarization (reverse direction of polarization) followed disagreement. These results suggested the groups which deviated most from the population tendency were the most likely to cause within-group disagreement, while within-group variances determined the direction of attitude change following disagreement within the group.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2014;
originally announced June 2014.
