Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Robust soybean seed yield estimation using high-throughput ground robot videos

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that soybean seed yield rankings can be read from ground-robot video using a deep learning pipeline, with up to 83% genotype ranking accuracy and a claimed 32% saving in time and cost over traditional combine-based data…

desk verdict The seed-counting half is a solid empirical contribution; the yield-estimation half fails on the full dataset (R²=0.0062) and the headline ranking accuracy is below the always-select-none baseline. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02642 v1 pith:XZW2X2BO submitted 2024-12-03 cs.CV

Jiale Feng , Samuel W. Blair , Timilehin Ayanlade , Aditya Balu , Baskar Ganapathysubramanian , Arti Singh , Soumik Sarkar , Asheesh K Singh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords soybeanyieldestimationseedcountingcrowddeeplearninggroundrobotphenotypingfisheyeimagecorrectiongenotyperankingdataaugmentation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that soybean seed yield can be estimated and ranked from ground-robot video rather than from combine harvesting, by counting seeds directly on mature standing plants. The authors build P2PNet-Yield, a deep learning pipeline that pairs a crowd-counting feature extractor trained to locate individual seeds with a regression head that turns the resulting feature maps into plot yield in tons per hectare. On three field seasons with 11,425 yield plots, they report genotype ranking accuracy up to 83% at a 10% selection threshold, high specificity for discarding low-yielding lines, and up to 32% reduction in time and cost for yield data collection. If true, this would let breeders screen large populations of experimental lines earlier and more cheaply, using rankings rather than absolute yield to make selection decisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is P2PNet-Yield, which combines a Feature Extraction Module with a Yield Regression Module. The Feature Extraction Module is the backbone of P2PNet-Soy, a crowd-counting model that outputs point-based seed locations; its weights are frozen during yield training. The Yield Regression Module is a small head made of one convolution layer, a max-pooling layer, and three fully connected layers; it maps the summed and concatenated feature maps from both sides of a plot to a single yield value in tons per hectare. Supporting the pipeline are fisheye-lens distortion correction followed by a 1000 by 1000 pixel center crop, random camera-sensor-effect augmentation (noise, blur, chromatic aberration, exposure), a 20-image-per-plot sampling scheme using seven splitters per row, and moving-grid spatial adjustment of both estimated and ground-truth values before ranking.

What would settle it

Run P2PNet-Yield on all plots of a new field season with no manual curation and compare the estimated-yield rankings to combine-harvested rankings; if the rank correlation is close to the paper's full-set R2 of 0.0062 rather than the curated R2 of 0.38, the claim that the method ranks genotypes in real breeding fields is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is that seed counting on mature soybean canopies, treated as a crowd-counting problem and carried out on fisheye ground-robot video, can serve as a non-destructive proxy for yield ranking in breeding trials. The P2PNet-Yield model takes 20 sample frames per plot, passes them through the frozen P2PNet-Soy backbone, sums the per-side feature maps, concatenates them, and regresses the result to plot yield. The authors report that the MIX AUG training set, which combines their 1,200 annotated field images with an external seed-image benchmark and random camera-sensor-effect augmentation, gives the lowest counting errors and an R2 of 0.87 between predicted and annotated seed counts. For breeding decisions, ranking by estimated total seed count reaches 86% accuracy and ranking by estimated yield 83% accuracy at the 10% selection threshold, with specificity values around 0.91 to 0.92. On a manually curated subset of 100 anomaly-free 2023 plots the yield regression reaches R2 of 0.38, while on the full 650-plot set the correlation is essentially zero (R2 of 0.0062), a result the authors attribute to the model's dependence on high-quality imaging and field conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The yield regression head is trained on 100 manually chosen, anomaly-free plots, and the whole reported ranking benefit rests on that trained head working when the same model is applied to the other 550 ordinary plots in the same field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the ranking results hold, breeders can discard the lowest-performing experimental lines using robot video and save up to 32% of the time and cost of collecting yield data.
  • The P2PNet-Yield pipeline can be applied to full-sized breeding plots under field conditions: 650 plots in 2023 were imaged with side cameras and sampled as 20 representative frames per plot.
  • At a 10% selection threshold, ranking by estimated yield reaches 83% accuracy, and ranking by estimated total seed count reaches 86%, with specificity near 0.91 to 0.92; both methods are better at eliminating poor lines than at identifying top lines.
  • When trained and tested on the 100 manually curated high-quality plots, estimated yield correlates with combine yield at R2 of 0.38, indicating the architecture can track yield when imaging and field conditions are clean.
  • Data augmentation with random camera sensor effects reduces seed-counting error from a mean absolute error of 54.93 to 20.54 on the test set, so the counting model generalizes across cameras and lighting conditions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the low-sensitivity/high-specificity pattern suggests practical deployment as a two-stage screen: use robot video to remove the bottom-ranked lines, then combine-harvest only the survivors.
  • An extension implied by the full-set R2 of 0.0062 is that the Yield Regression Module needs to be made robust to lodging, disease, and overexposure before the method can be treated as a full replacement for combine harvest; the paper itself restricts its viability claim to curated high-quality plots.
  • The same fisheye-correction-plus-sensor-augmentation recipe could transfer to other organ-counting tasks in the field, such as pod, fruit, or panicle counting, wherever camera variation rather than biology is the main source of error.
  • Since accuracy rises as the selection threshold tightens, the method fits early-generation yield trials that discard most lines; adopting it for final near-release comparisons would require sensitivity to improve.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes a pipeline for soybean yield estimation from ground-robot fisheye videos. Images are corrected, cropped, and processed by P2PNet-Yield, which combines the P2PNet-Soy feature-extraction backbone with a small regression head to predict plot yield (t/ha). The seed-counting component is trained and evaluated on 2021 and University of Tokyo data with camera-sensor augmentation, achieving its best result on the MIX AUG combination (MAE 20.54, R²=0.87). The yield regression module is trained and tested only on a manually curated 100+100 subset of 2023 plots, and the paper reports a genotype ranking accuracy of up to 83% and a 32% reduction in time and cost for yield data collection.

Significance. If the yield-estimation claim held, the work would be a valuable step toward non-destructive, high-throughput yield phenotyping for soybean breeding. The seed-counting contribution is a genuine engineering achievement: the MIX AUG model shows a substantial improvement in MAE over the non-augmented baselines, and the creation of a large field-image dataset is a useful resource for the community. However, the central yield-estimation and ranking claims are not supported by the paper's own results. The full-dataset correlation between estimated and harvested yield is effectively zero, and the reported ranking accuracy is below a trivial baseline. The positive yield result is confined to a manually curated, anomaly-free subset and does not generalize to the uncurated field data, which is the actual target of the claimed scalable solution.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.3, Figure 11a] The central claim of the paper—that P2PNet-Yield estimates plot seed yield well enough to support breeding decisions—fails on the full 650-plot 2023 dataset. Figure 11a reports R²=0.0062 between estimated and harvested yield, i.e., essentially no predictive relationship. The manuscript itself states in Section 3.3 that 'no correlation was noted in the uncurated dataset.' The only positive result (R²=0.38, MSE=6.53) comes from 100 test plots obtained by manually removing plots with lodging, disease, large gaps, and bad imaging. A method that requires such manual curation is not a 'robust' or 'scalable solution' as claimed in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section 3.2.2, Table 2] The headline 'genotype ranking accuracy up to 83%' is not evidence of ranking ability. At the 10% selection threshold, the reported accuracy is 542/650 = 83.4%, but the always-select-none baseline gives 585/650 = 90.0%. The same pattern holds at 20% (reported 70% vs. 80% baseline) and 30% (reported 60% vs. 70% baseline). The low sensitivity values (0.17, 0.25, 0.33) further confirm that the model is not identifying top-performing lines. Thus the accuracy metric, as presented, is misleading and does not support the abstract's claim of effective genotype ranking.
  3. [Figure 8] The near-zero correlation (R²=0.06) between estimated total seed count (TSC) and estimated yield is a red flag for the yield regression module. Since both outputs derive from the same feature-extraction backbone applied to the same 20 sample images per plot, one would expect them to be strongly related if the regression were tracking seed information. The near-zero correlation suggests the yield regression is not consistently using the seed-count signal, further undermining the validity of the estimated yields used in the ranking analysis.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5] The claim of 'up to a 32% reduction in time to collect yield data as well as costs associated with traditional yield estimation' is unsupported. No time-motion study, cost model, or any quantitative comparison of the proposed pipeline with combine harvesting appears anywhere in the methods or results. This is a quantitative claim in the abstract and conclusion that cannot be verified from the manuscript.
  5. [Sections 2.3, 3.3] The yield regression module is trained and evaluated on a single manually curated 100-plot subset from one 2023 field, with no independent validation set from a different year, location, or even from the uncurated portion of the same field. The failure on the full 2023 dataset (Figure 11a) shows that the module does not generalize from the curated subset to the actual breeding-trial population. The manuscript's own limitation statement in Section 4, acknowledging the model's dependence on image quality and the experience-based sampling/fusion choices, does not address this more fundamental generalization failure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.1, Figure 6] The text says the ISU AUG model has R²=0.87 in Figure 6c, but the Figure 6c caption states R²=0.78; the R²=0.87 value belongs to Figure 6d (MIX AUG). This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Section 3.1, Table 1] The sentence 'MIX NO AUG and ISU AUG had a similar performance with slightly better MSE and MAE for ISU NO AUG (Table 1)' appears to be a typo: Table 1 shows MIX NO AUG, not ISU NO AUG, has slightly better MSE and MAE than ISU AUG.
  3. [Abstract, Section 2.1.1] The abstract lists three years of plot data (8500 in 2021, 2275 in 2022, 650 in 2023), but Section 2.1.1 describes robot video data collected only in 2021 and 2023, and no 2022 data appear in the methods or results. This discrepancy should be resolved.
  4. [Figure 11] The axes of Figure 11 are labeled with yield values in the range 50–100, whereas the text reports yields in t/ha (with typical values around 5–8 t/ha in Figure 8). The units in Figure 11 are undefined and likely inconsistent with the rest of the paper; please clarify whether these are bushels/acre or some other unit.
  5. [Section 2.1.4] The description of image sampling is confusing: the text first says each row is divided into eight sections with seven splitters and the middle five are chosen, then says 'The two rows of the same plot were treated as a single row, resulting in ten images per side and twenty images per plot.' The arithmetic behind these numbers should be explained more clearly.
  6. [Data Availability Statement] The data availability statement provides only an email address for requesting data. Since the paper does not release code or model weights, the yield-regression training protocol cannot be independently reproduced; please consider providing at least the trained model weights and the exact data split used in Section 3.3.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: seed-count anchoring is external and the yield-regression R² uses a held-out split; the full-field failure and baseline-inflated ranking metrics are correctness concerns, not circularity.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense of a result reducing to its inputs. The seed-counting backbone is anchored to external evidence: P2PNet-Soy was published by the University of Tokyo (Zhao et al., 2023), and the paper fine-tunes it on the external UTokyo benchmark (126 train/27 eval) together with 1,200 ISU 2021 point annotations (Section 2.2, Table 1, Figure 6d). The yield-regression module is a supervised model trained on plot ground-truth yields, and Section 3.3 explicitly partitions a curated 2023 subset into 100 training and 100 test plots and reports a held-out R²=0.38 and MSE=6.53; this is an evaluation, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. The serious problems in the paper—full-field R²=0.0062 (Figure 11a), ranking accuracy at 10% (83.4%) falling below the always-select-none baseline (90%), and the unsupported 32% time/cost reduction—are failures of generalization and of statistical interpretation, and they are explicitly acknowledged as limitations in Sections 3.3 and 4 ('No correlation was noted in the uncurated dataset'; model 'highly dependent on image quality'). Such problems bear on correctness and utility, not on circularity of the derivation. Self-citations (e.g., Riera et al. 2021, Singh et al. 2021a-d) are used for architectural inspiration and field context, not as load-bearing uniqueness theorems or unverified premises. I therefore cannot exhibit a specific equation or construction in which an output is equivalent to its input by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline's central claim depends on fitted regression weights, hand-chosen sampling and curation rules, and domain assumptions about seed count as a yield proxy, plot segmentation, and spatial adjustment. No invented physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Spatial adjustment grid (5x5) and moving-mean coefficient b = not reported; computed via mvngGrAd movingGrid()
    Applied to ground truth yield, estimated total seed count, and estimated yield before ranking; the grid size and coefficient choices directly shape the ranking results reported in Section 3.2.
  • Seed-count image sampling (20 images per plot) = 20 (middle 5 of 8 splitters, two sides, two rows)
    Hand-chosen sampling protocol; yield regression uses only these 20 feature maps per plot, so representativeness of this choice is load-bearing for yield estimates.
  • Curated 200-plot subset for P2PNet-Yield training and testing = 100 train / 100 test plots from 2023 F7
    The only positive yield correlation (R2=0.38) comes from this manually selected, anomaly-free subset; the selection is post hoc and not based on a pre-registered rule.
  • Selection thresholds for ranking accuracy = 10%, 20%, 30%
    Accuracy and specificity rise as the threshold becomes more stringent; the headline 83% is at the 10% threshold where a trivial always-select-none classifier scores 90%.
  • Yield Regression Module hyperparameters = 50 epochs, batch size 8, Adam, frozen backbone
    Reported once in Section 2.3, but the training dataset for this module is not specified, and this affects the ranking evaluation.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Seed count is a reliable proxy for plot yield (r=0.92 cited from Wei and Molin, 2020).
    Used in the Introduction and Section 3.2 to justify ranking plots by estimated seed count; if this correlation does not hold in these breeding plots, the total-seed-count rankings are invalid.
  • domain assumption The 20 sample images per plot represent the whole plot's yield.
    Section 2.1.4 selects the middle five splitters and expects them to be representative; the first and last splitters are excluded, and cropping loses the top and bottom of plants.
  • domain assumption P2PNet-Soy feature maps, trained for seed counting, contain enough signal for yield regression.
    P2PNet-Yield freezes the seed-counting backbone and regresses yield from its feature maps without additional supervision; this transfer is assumed rather than derived.
  • domain assumption Ground-truth combine yields are accurate and consistent after 13% moisture adjustment.
    Used as labels for regression and ranking; any systematic error in harvest or moisture adjustment propagates into all reported correlations.
  • domain assumption Spatial adjustment using mvngGrAd removes environmental noise without removing genetic signal.
    Section 2.1.2 applies moving-grid adjustment to ground truth and estimates before ranking; the b coefficient and 5x5 grid choice are inherited from the package.
  • domain assumption Earthsense's proprietary plot segmentation (start and stop times) is accurate.
    Section 2.1.4 assigns frames to plots using this tool, checked manually on about 50% of images; residual errors would misassign images and corrupt plot-level estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robust soybean seed yield estimation using high-throughput ground robot videos." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XZW2X2BO

@misc{pith2026241202642,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robust soybean seed yield estimation using high-throughput ground robot videos},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XZW2X2BO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02642}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel method for soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) yield estimation leveraging high throughput seed counting via computer vision and deep learning techniques. Traditional methods for collecting yield data are labor-intensive, costly, prone to equipment failures at critical data collection times, and require transportation of equipment across field sites. Computer vision, the field of teaching computers to interpret visual data, allows us to extract detailed yield information directly from images. By treating it as a computer vision task, we report a more efficient alternative, employing a ground robot equipped with fisheye cameras to capture comprehensive videos of soybean plots from which images are extracted in a variety of development programs. These images are processed through the P2PNet-Yield model, a deep learning framework where we combined a Feature Extraction Module (the backbone of the P2PNet-Soy) and a Yield Regression Module to estimate seed yields of soybean plots. Our results are built on three years of yield testing plot data - 8500 in 2021, 2275 in 2022, and 650 in 2023. With these datasets, our approach incorporates several innovations to further improve the accuracy and generalizability of the seed counting and yield estimation architecture, such as the fisheye image correction and data augmentation with random sensor effects. The P2PNet-Yield model achieved a genotype ranking accuracy score of up to 83%. It demonstrates up to a 32% reduction in time to collect yield data as well as costs associated with traditional yield estimation, offering a scalable solution for breeding programs and agricultural productivity enhancement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02642 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of our spatial adjustment grid pattern. Highlighted cells represent plots used in the spatial adjustment. Center cell that is not highlighted represents the cell being adjusted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. This figure demonstrates the pipeline from in-field data collection and the post-processing needed for use in our P2PNet-Yield model. The first figure shows our Terrasentia robot operating in a mature soybean field. As the robot moves through the field, the two side-mounted cameras collect fisheye video data. Individual frames are then extracted, corrected for fisheye distortion, and cropped to remove blurry edges … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. a. Data collection for a single plot. Row 1 Side A Side B Row 2 Side A Side B Row 1 Row 2 Side A Side Side B Side A B Collection 1 Collection 2 Collection 3 right right left left Figure 3b. Creation of splitters for a plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of an expertly annotated image. All seeds clearly discernible to the naked eye were annotated using point annotations. This image represents a frame that has been calibrated for fisheye distortion and has been cropped. Seed Location Regression Classification Se…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a. ISU NO AUG 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ground Truth Counts 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Predicted Counts Fitted Line (R² = 0.77) Figure 6b. MIX NO AUG 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ground Truth Counts 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Predicted Counts Fit…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: a. ISU NO AUG 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ground Truth Count 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 Residuals Figure 7b. MIX NO AUG 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ground Truth Count 200 150 100 50 0 50 100 150 200 Residuals Figure 7c. ISU AUG 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Correlation between estimated TSC and estimated yield for the 650 plots from the 2023 F7 field. R2 value of 0.06 and a correlation coefficient of 0.25. Frontiers 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: a. Ranking scores using TSC. Figure 9b. Ranking scores using estimated yield [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: a. 10% selection threshold Figure 10b. 20% selection threshold Figure 10c. 30% selection threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: a. Ground truth yield vs estimated yield using whole dataset. 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 Ground Truth Yield 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 Predicted Yield Fitted Line (R² = 0.3754) Data Figure 11b. Ground truth yield vs estimated yield using dataset of plots under optimal breeding an…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: a. Using original weights Figure 12b. Using our weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R., Abebe, A

    Alabi, T. R., Abebe, A. T., Chigeza, G., and Fowobaje, K. R. (2022). Estimation of soybean grain yield from multispectral high-resolution uav data with machine learning models in west africa. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment 27, 100782 alabi2022estimation

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    and Underwood, J

    Bargoti, S. and Underwood, J. P. (2017). Image segmentation for fruit detection and yield estimation in apple orchards. Journal of Field Robotics 34, 1039--1060 bargoti2017image

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Bradski, G., Kaehler, A., et al. (2024). OpenCV: Open Source Computer Vision Library. Version 4.8.0 opencv_library

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A., Vasudevan, R., and Johnson-Roberson, M

    Carlson, A., Skinner, K. A., Vasudevan, R., and Johnson-Roberson, M. (2018). Modeling camera effects to improve visual learning from synthetic data. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 11129 LNCS, 505--520 Carlson2018

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    E., Riera, L

    Carroll, M. E., Riera, L. G., Miller, B. A., Dixon, P. M., Ganapathysubramanian, B., Sarkar, S., et al. (2024). Leveraging soil mapping and machine learning to improve spatial adjustments in plant breeding trials. Crop Science carroll2024leveraging

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Chattopadhyay, S., Gupta, A., Carroll, M., Raigne, J., Ganapathysubramanian, B., Singh, A., et al. (2023). A comprehensive study on soybean yield prediction using soil and hyperspectral reflectance data. (Preprints) chattopadhyay2023comprehensive

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    K., Koushik, J., Jubery, T

    Chiranjeevi, S., Sadaati, M., Deng, Z. K., Koushik, J., Jubery, T. Z., Mueller, D., et al. (2023). Deep learning powered real-time identification of insects using citizen science data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.02507 chiranjeevi2023deep

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Fehr, W., Caviness, C., Burmood, D., and Pennington, J. (1971). Stage of development descriptions for soybeans, glycine max (l.) merrill 1. Crop Science 11, 929--931 fehr1971stage

    work page 1971

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Grimm, J., Herzog, K., Rist, F., Kicherer, A., Toepfer, R., and Steinhage, V. (2019). An adaptable approach to automated visual detection of plant organs with applications in grapevine breeding. Biosystems Engineering 183, 170--183 grimm2019adaptable

    2019

  2. [10]

    Guadagna, P., Fernandes, M., Chen, F., Santamaria, A., Teng, T., Frioni, T., et al. (2023). Using deep learning for pruning region detection and plant organ segmentation in dormant spur-pruned grapevines. Precision Agriculture 24, 1547--1569 guadagna2023using

    2023

  3. [11]

    and Singh, A

    Gupta, A. and Singh, A. (2023). Agri-gnn: A novel genotypic-topological graph neural network framework built on graphsage for optimized yield prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13037 gupta2023agri

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    He, H., Ma, X., Guan, H., Wang, F., and Shen, P. (2023). Recognition of soybean pods and yield prediction based on improved deep learning model. Frontiers in Plant Science 13, 1096619 he2023recognition

    2023

  5. [13]

    W., Adak, A., Carroll, M

    Herr, A. W., Adak, A., Carroll, M. E., Elango, D., Kar, S., Li, C., et al. (2023). Unoccupied aerial systems imagery for phenotyping in cotton, maize, soybean, and wheat breeding. Crop Science 63, 1722--1749 herr2023unoccupied

    2023

  6. [14]

    [Dataset] HumanSignal, Inc. (2023). Label Studio (version 1.13.0). Open Source Data Labeling Platform labelstudio

    2023

  7. [15]

    [Dataset] Jiang, K. (2017). Calibrate fisheye lens using opencv. https://medium.com/@kennethjiang/calibrate-fisheye-lens-using-opencv-333b05afa0b0. Accessed: September 5, 2024 jiang2017fisheye

    2017

  8. [16]

    and Chen, C

    Kang, H. and Chen, C. (2020). Fast implementation of real-time fruit detection in apple orchards using deep learning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 168, 105108 kang2020fast

    2020

  9. [17]

    Kingma, D. P. and Ba, J. (2014). Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2015 - Conference Track Proceedings Adam2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    D., Piepho, H.-P., Dias, K

    Krause, M. D., Piepho, H.-P., Dias, K. O., Singh, A. K., and Beavis, W. D. (2023). Models to estimate genetic gain of soybean seed yield from annual multi-environment field trials. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 136, 252 krause2023models

    2023

  11. [19]

    T., Chen, D., Lin, F., Wang, D., Yin, X., et al

    Li, J., Magar, R. T., Chen, D., Lin, F., Wang, D., Yin, X., et al. (2024). Soybeannet: Transformer-based convolutional neural network for soybean pod counting from unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) images. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 220, 108861 li2024soybeannet

    2024

  12. [20]

    M., Sun, S., Gao, W., et al

    Li, Y., Jia, J., Zhang, L., Khattak, A. M., Sun, S., Gao, W., et al. (2019). Soybean seed counting based on pod image using two-column convolution neural network. Ieee Access 7, 64177--64185 li2019soybean

    2019

  13. [21]

    Lu, W., Du, R., Niu, P., Xing, G., Luo, H., Deng, Y., et al. (2022). Soybean yield preharvest prediction based on bean pods and leaves image recognition using deep learning neural network combined with grnn. Frontiers in Plant Science 12, 791256 lu2022soybean

    2022

  14. [22]

    Maimaitijiang, M., Sagan, V., Sidike, P., Hartling, S., Esposito, F., and Fritschi, F. B. (2020). Soybean yield prediction from uav using multimodal data fusion and deep learning. Remote Sensing of Environment 237, 111599 maimaitijiang2020soybean

    2020

  15. [23]

    Mathew, J., Delavarpour, N., Miranda, C., Stenger, J., Zhang, Z., Aduteye, J., et al. (2023). A novel approach to pod count estimation using a depth camera in support of soybean breeding applications. Sensors 23, 6506 mathew2023novel

    2023

  16. [24]

    McGuire, M., Soman, C., Diers, B., and Chowdhary, G. (2021). High throughput soybean pod-counting with in-field robotic data collection and machine-vision based data analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.10568 mcguire2021

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Medic, J., Atkinson, C., and Hurburgh, C. R. (2014). Current knowledge in soybean composition. Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 91, 363--384 medic2014current

    2014

  18. [26]

    Ning, S., Zhao, Q., and Zhang, X. (2022). Extraction of soybean pod features based on computer vision. In International Conference on 5G for Future Wireless Networks (Springer), 48--58 ning2022extraction

    2022

  19. [27]

    B., Bao, Y., Sanz-Saez, A., and Chen, C

    Puhl, R. B., Bao, Y., Sanz-Saez, A., and Chen, C. (2021). Infield peanut pod counting using deep neural networks for yield estimation. In 2021 ASABE Annual International Virtual Meeting (American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers), 1 puhl2021infield

    2021

  20. [28]

    Python Programming Language

    Python Software Foundation (2024). Python Programming Language. Version 3.10.0 python

    2024

  21. [29]

    G., Carroll, M

    Riera, L. G., Carroll, M. E., Zhang, Z., Shook, J. M., Ghosal, S., Gao, T., et al. (2021). Deep multiview image fusion for soybean yield estimation in breeding applications. Plant Phenomics 2021, 1--12. doi:10.34133/2021/9846470 Riera2021

    2021 doi

  22. [30]

    Sa, I., Ge, Z., Dayoub, F., Upcroft, B., Perez, T., and McCool, C. (2016). Deepfruits: A fruit detection system using deep neural networks. Sensors 16, 1222 sa2016deepfruits

    2016

  23. [31]

    Sarkar, S., Ganapathysubramanian, B., Singh, A., Fotouhi, F., Kar, S., Nagasubramanian, K., et al. (2024). Cyber-agricultural systems for crop breeding and sustainable production. Trends in Plant Science 29, 130--149 sarkar2024cyber

    2024

  24. [32]

    K., Balabaygloo, B

    Singh, A. K., Balabaygloo, B. J., Bekee, B., Blair, S. W., Fey, S., Fotouhi, F., et al. (2024). Smart connected farms and networked farmers to improve crop production, sustainability and profitability. Frontiers in Agronomy singh2024smart

    2024

  25. [33]

    P., Singh, A

    Singh, D. P., Singh, A. K., and Singh, A. (2021 a ). Plant Breeding and Cultivar Development (Academic Press) singh2021plant

    2021

  26. [34]

    P., Singh, A

    Singh, D. P., Singh, A. K., and Singh, A. (2021 b ). Plant Breeding and Cultivar Development (Academic Press). Chapter 28 singh2021plant_ch28

    2021

  27. [35]

    P., Singh, A

    Singh, D. P., Singh, A. K., and Singh, A. (2021 c ). Plant Breeding and Cultivar Development (Academic Press). Chapter 5 singh2021plant_ch5

    2021

  28. [36]

    P., Singh, A

    Singh, D. P., Singh, A. K., and Singh, A. (2021 d ). Plant Breeding and Cultivar Development (Academic Press). Chapter 25 singh2021plant_ch25

    2021

  29. [37]

    Song, Q., Wang, C., Jiang, Z., Wang, Y., Tai, Y., Wang, C., et al. (2021). Rethinking counting and localization in crowds: A purely point-based framework. In 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (IEEE), 3345--3354. doi:10.1109/ICCV48922.2021.00335 Song2021

    2021

  30. [38]

    Technow, F. (2015). R package mvnggrad: moving grid adjustment in plant breeding field trials. R package version 0.1 5 technow2015r

    2015

  31. [39]

    C., Grinblat, G

    Uzal, L. C., Grinblat, G. L., Nam \' as, R., Larese, M. G., Bianchi, J. S., Morandi, E. N., et al. (2018). Seed-per-pod estimation for plant breeding using deep learning. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 150, 196--204 uzal2018seed

    2018

  32. [40]

    Wei, M. C. F. and Molin, J. P. (2020). Soybean yield estimation and its components: A linear regression approach. Agriculture 10, 348 wei2020soybean

    2020

  33. [41]

    Xiang, S., Wang, S., Xu, M., Wang, W., and Liu, W. (2023). Yolo pod: a fast and accurate multi-task model for dense soybean pod counting. Plant Methods 19, 8 xiang2023yolo

    2023

  34. [42]

    Yang, S., Zheng, L., He, P., Wu, T., Sun, S., and Wang, M. (2021). High-throughput soybean seeds phenotyping with convolutional neural networks and transfer learning. Plant Methods 17, 50 yang2021high

    2021

  35. [43]

    Yang, S., Zheng, L., Yang, H., Zhang, M., Wu, T., Sun, S., et al. (2022). A synthetic datasets based instance segmentation network for high-throughput soybean pods phenotype investigation. Expert Systems with Applications 192, 116403 yang2022synthetic

    2022

  36. [44]

    J., Chiranjeevi, S., Elango, D., Sarkar, S., Singh, A

    Young, T. J., Chiranjeevi, S., Elango, D., Sarkar, S., Singh, A. K., Singh, A., et al. (2024). Soybean canopy stress classification using 3d point cloud data. Agronomy 14, 1181 young2024soybean

    2024

  37. [45]

    canopy fingerprints

    Young, T. J., Jubery, T. Z., Carley, C. N., Carroll, M., Sarkar, S., Singh, A. K., et al. (2023). “canopy fingerprints” for characterizing three-dimensional point cloud data of soybean canopies. Frontiers in plant science 14, 1141153 young2023canopy

    2023

  38. [46]

    F., Greenberg, J

    Yu, N., Li, L., Schmitz, N., Tian, L. F., Greenberg, J. A., and Diers, B. W. (2016). Development of methods to improve soybean yield estimation and predict plant maturity with an unmanned aerial vehicle based platform. Remote Sensing of Environment 187, 91--101 yu2016development

    2016

  39. [47]

    Yu, Z., Wang, Y., Ye, J., Liufu, S., Lu, D., Zhu, X., et al. (2024). Accurate and fast implementation of soybean pod counting and localization from high-resolution image. Frontiers in Plant Science 15, 1320109 yu2024accurate

    2024

  40. [48]

    Zhang, C., Lu, X., Ma, H., Hu, Y., Zhang, S., Ning, X., et al. (2023). High-throughput classification and counting of vegetable soybean pods based on deep learning. Agronomy 13, 1154 zhang2023high

    2023

  41. [49]

    Zhao, J., Kaga, A., Yamada, T., Komatsu, K., Hirata, K., Kikuchi, A., et al. (2023). Improved field-based soybean seed counting and localization with feature level considered. Plant Phenomics 5. doi:10.34133/plantphenomics.0026 Zhao2023

    2023 doi

  42. [50]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address annote author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eid howpublished institution journal key language month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.s...

  43. [51]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.