Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 67 references

Can Large Multimodal Models Understand Agricultural Scenes? Benchmarking with AgroMind

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read AgroMind benchmarks 24 large multimodal models on 13 agricultural remote sensing tasks and finds most lag a human baseline, with spatial reasoning and fine-grained recognition the weakest areas.

desk verdict AgroMind is a genuinely useful new benchmark for agricultural remote sensing, but the headline 'GPT-4o beats humans' claim needs a contamination check and a stronger human baseline before I'd trust the specific numbers. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12207 v3 pith:QEREYWCS submitted 2025-05-18 cs.CV cs.AI

Qingmei Li , Yang Zhang , Zurong Mai , Yuhang Chen , Shuohong Lou , Henglian Huang , Jiarui Zhang , Zhiwei Zhang
show 5 more authors
Yibin Wen Weijia Li Haohuan Fu Jianxi Huang Juepeng Zheng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords agriculturalremotesensinglargemultimodalmodelsvisualquestionansweringbenchmarkspatialreasoningcropdiseasediagnosticszero-shotevaluationsceneunderstanding
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

AgroMind is a benchmark for agricultural remote sensing that assembles 20,850 images and 28,482 question-answer pairs into 13 task types organized by four ability dimensions: spatial perception, object understanding, scene understanding, and scene reasoning. The paper's aim is to decide whether large multimodal models can genuinely interpret agricultural scenes, and it reports that most cannot: 17 of 24 evaluated models score below a human baseline of 33.15%, with the worst performance concentrated in spatial localization, boundary detection, counting, and visual prompt reasoning. GPT-4o reaches 43.14% overall, nearly ten points above the human baseline, but it still lags on the spatial tasks. If the benchmark is valid, it establishes a standardized way to measure progress in agricultural AI and points future work toward spatial and fine-grained recognition rather than broad knowledge recall.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the AgroMind task hierarchy and its QA generation-and-scoring pipeline. The benchmark defines four dimensions — spatial perception, object understanding, scene understanding, and scene reasoning — subdivided into 13 tasks; each image is paired with rule-generated or human-generated questions built from pixel-level masks, instance boxes, and parcel polygons, with a logic-enhancement step that inserts step-by-step reasoning paths into the answers rather than using raw labels. Evaluation is zero-shot: fixed-format answers are scored by strict string or set matching, localization answers by IoU above 0.5, and open-ended answers by cosine similarity from a Sentence-BERT model above a threshold of 0.60. Multi-image questions are concatenated into single images so that models cannot exploit multi-image input advantages. This pipeline is what turns heterogeneous public data into comparable task scores.

What would settle it

Hold out a private set of agricultural images from the same sensors and crops that no evaluated model has seen, then compare model accuracy on it with accuracy on AgroMind's public-dataset questions; if public-question accuracy is substantially higher and private accuracy collapses especially on fine-grained recognition, the reported rankings partly measure memorization rather than agricultural understanding.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims that AgroMind provides the first broad, multi-scene, multi-task evaluation of large multimodal models in agricultural remote sensing. The central empirical claim is that current models show significant performance gaps in spatial perception and fine-grained recognition while doing comparatively well on knowledge-driven scene reasoning: models score much higher on object classification, pest and disease diagnostics, and climate type reasoning than on spatial relationship, boundary detection, counting, or visual prompt reasoning. The paper also claims that the best closed model, GPT-4o, surpasses a human student baseline overall (43.14% vs 33.15%) but falls behind on boundary detection and counting, and that 17 of the 24 models underperform the human baseline. Across difficulty levels, the authors find that models outperform students on hard questions while struggling on easy and medium ones, and that architecture matters more than parameter count.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's conclusions stand on the assumption that the 20,850 test images, most drawn from public datasets that are available online, were not memorized during pretraining by the models being evaluated; the paper never tests this.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A standardized scorecard now exists for agricultural remote sensing: any future model can be compared with the 24 evaluated models on the same 13 tasks, which should make gap-filling work easier to target.
  • The spatial tasks isolate a concrete failure mode: if models cannot localize objects, judge spatial relations, detect boundaries, or count, they cannot support precision agriculture operations such as yield mapping and targeted weeding.
  • The relative strength on climate type reasoning and planning suggests models compensate for weak visual grounding with broad world knowledge, so gains on those tasks should not be read as gains in agricultural perception.
  • The difficulty-level result implies that improving easy and medium questions — ordinary farm-scene situations — is a more urgent direction than chasing expert-level hard questions for real-world deployment.
  • Architecture and training recipe appear to matter more than parameter count, since InternVL2-26B outperforms LLaVA-NeXT-34B and LLaVA-NeXT gets worse from 8B to 13B.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because most test images come from public datasets that predate model training, the reported numbers may include a memorization component; a test on a private counterpart dataset would isolate genuine agricultural understanding.
  • The difficulty labels are assigned by student-human accuracy, so 'hard' denotes hard for students, not hard for agronomists; an expert panel might order the tasks differently and could change the human-versus-model comparison.
  • Strict exact matching for multiple-choice and count questions may mark correct-but-differently-worded answers wrong; a sampled human equivalence check would quantify this and could move the rankings.
  • If the spatial-perception gap persists on fresh data, it suggests a testable training recipe: augment multimodal models with spatially supervised agricultural data such as masks, boxes, and parcel polygons, then measure whether the 13-task scores close the gap.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. AgroMind is a benchmark for evaluating large multimodal models (LMMs) on agricultural remote sensing. The authors combine nine public datasets and one privately collected global parcel dataset to produce a test set that, in the main text, contains 20,850 images and 28,482 QA pairs organized into 13 task types across four dimensions: spatial perception, object understanding, scene understanding, and scene reasoning. A pipeline is presented for data pre-processing, question generation, and quality control. The authors evaluate 20 open-source and 4 closed-source LMMs in a zero-shot setting, along with a random baseline and a baseline of student volunteers, and report that leading closed models such as GPT-4o exceed the human baseline overall, while most open-source models underperform. The paper identifies spatial reasoning and fine-grained recognition as the main weaknesses of current LMMs and releases data and code.

Significance. If the benchmark's measurements are valid, AgroMind would fill a genuine gap: existing remote sensing benchmarks are urban or domain-general, and agricultural benchmarks are smaller and narrower. The paper's strengths are its large scale, multi-sensor coverage, hierarchical task design, and the inclusion of a human baseline. The authors also provide reproducible evaluation protocols and a clear annotation pipeline, and they commit to public data and code. However, the headline results (e.g., GPT-4o outperforming humans by 9.99 points) rest on the assumption that the public-source test images were not memorized during LMM pretraining, and this assumption is untested. The open-ended scoring threshold is also tuned on a subset of the same benchmark, adding a circular element. These issues must be resolved before the benchmark's validity claims are fully convincing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1 / Appendix B.1 (Table 4)] No contamination analysis is provided even though nine of the ten source datasets (IP102, CropHarvest, Agriculture-Vision, PhenoBench, OilPalmUAV, ACFR, OAM-TCD, 2018 AI Challenge, Maize Tassel) are public and may appear in the pretraining or instruction-tuning corpora of the evaluated LMMs. The paper's own Section 5.2 observation that models 'tend to reproduce answers seen in their training data rather than understand the agricultural scene itself' makes this risk concrete. The absence of a per-source accuracy breakdown means the reported GPT-4o advantage over humans (Table 2) could be partly an artifact of memorization. Please add (i) near-duplicate checks against common multimodal training corpora, (ii) accuracy reported separately for the private Global Parcel Dataset and for each public source, and (iii) a rerun of the model-versus-human comparison on the private subset alone. This is necessary to support the claim that AgroMind measures agricultural understanding rather than exposure to familiar images.
  2. [Abstract; Section 3.1; Table 1] The paper reports inconsistent dataset statistics: the abstract states 27,247 QA pairs and 19,615 images, while the main text (Section 3.1, Table 1, Figures 3 and 4) consistently reports 28,482 QA pairs and 20,850 images. The abstract also says 'eight public datasets,' whereas Section 3.1 and Appendix B.1 say 'nine public datasets and one private.' The dataset scale is a primary contribution, so these counts must be harmonized to a single, verifiable version.
  3. [Appendix C.4] The correctness criterion for open-ended questions is a semantic-similarity threshold (cosine > 0.60) computed with paraphrase-MiniLM-L6-V2, and the threshold is described as determined through 'preliminary experiments on a dataset subset' 'under which all models achieve reasonable accuracy.' This is a free parameter fitted to the benchmark itself, and it directly affects reported open-ended accuracies (e.g., 15.14% for GPT-4o and 5.80% for humans in Table 6). Please report the proportion of open-ended questions, provide a sensitivity analysis of overall accuracy and model rankings across thresholds such as 0.50-0.70, and, if possible, validate the threshold against expert human judgments of semantic equivalence.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'All close-sourced models run on machines equipped with NVIDIA A800 GPUs' seems inaccurate for API-access models such as GPT-4o; please clarify the computational setup.
  2. [Table 2] The human baseline is reported only as a point estimate; given the claim that GPT-4o surpasses humans, please report the variance of human accuracy (e.g., standard deviation across the ten subsets or volunteers) and, if practical, confidence intervals for model scores.
  3. [Appendix B.1] The text refers to a 'three-dimensional evaluation framework (Spatial–Object–Scene)' and also to 'three-dimensional Spa tial–Object–Scene framework,' which conflicts with the four dimensions (Spatial Perception, Object Understanding, Scene Understanding, Scene Reasoning) used elsewhere in the paper; please reconcile the terminology.
  4. [Figure 8] The geographical coverage map appears to contain garbled text (e.g., '/uni00000013/...'), likely a rendering error; please provide a legible version.
  5. [Appendix C.4] For single-choice parsing, the rule to select the last mentioned option when no option marker is present may bias results for long outputs; please report how often this fallback is used.
  6. [Table 1] The 'Difficulty Level' column in Table 1 is blank for all datasets; either fill it in or remove it to avoid confusion.
  7. [Abstract] Minor grammatical issue: 'Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) has demonstrated' should be 'have demonstrated.'
  8. [Section 5.1] All multi-image questions are concatenated into a single image before evaluation; this is a reasonable way to equalize input formats, but the assumption that this preserves task difficulty is untested. Please provide a small-scale comparison of multi-image models on the original multi-image inputs versus the concatenated versions.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Secondary analyses are self-referential (difficulty labels defined from the same human answers, open-ended threshold tuned on the benchmark), but the central model rankings are direct measurements and remain independent.

  1. self definitional [Appendix C.3 (Definitions of question difficulty levels); Section 5.2 (Model performance across different levels).]
    "A question is considered easy if fewer than one-third of the volunteers answered it incorrectly, medium if between one-third and two-thirds of the volunteers answered it incorrectly, and hard if more than two-thirds of the volunteers answered it incorrectly."

    The 'hard' label is assigned from human error rate, so human accuracy on hard questions is capped below one-third by construction. Section 5.2 then reports 'most LMMs outperforms humans on hard questions' and attributes this to volunteers lacking specialized knowledge. The human side of that comparison is not an independent measurement but a restatement of the labeling rule: Table 3's human column (Easy 78.01, Medium 45.06, Hard 13.36) is essentially the definition written as a result. This does not invalidate the overall benchmark scores, but it makes the difficulty-level human-vs-model discussion partly circular.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix C.4 (More details of evaluation protocol), open-ended questions scoring.]
    "Through preliminary experiments on a dataset subset, we determined the threshold as 0.60, under which all models achieve reasonable accuracy."

    The 0.60 cosine-similarity threshold is fitted on a subset of the same benchmark and then applied to score all open-ended answers reported in Table 6 and the overall accuracy. The pass/fail boundary for open-ended questions is therefore selected using the models' own outputs on the benchmark, so the reported open-ended scores are not fully independent measurements. Because the same threshold is applied to every model, this does not by itself force the overall ranking, but it means the open-ended accuracy values are partly an artifact of calibration rather than a clean prediction.

full rationale

The central contribution of AgroMind is a fixed evaluation set with human-annotated answers; the reported model accuracies are direct measurements on that set and are not derived from any fitted parameter or from the authors' prior claims. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and the self-citations (e.g., OilPalmUAV as a source dataset) are ordinary data references rather than load-bearing arguments. The two flagged steps are real but peripheral. First, the difficulty levels are defined by the same human error rates that Table 3 then reports, so the 'models outperform humans on hard questions' remark is partly a restatement of the labeling rule rather than an independent finding. Second, the 0.60 semantic-similarity threshold for open-ended scoring was tuned on a subset of the benchmark, so the open-ended accuracy column is partially calibrated rather than purely measured. Neither step forces the central ranking: the overall gap (e.g., GPT-4o 43.14% vs. human 33.15%) is dominated by multiple-choice and counting tasks scored by exact string matching, and the same threshold is applied to every model. The absence of a training-data contamination analysis is a validity threat, but it is not circularity: contamination would mean the scores reflect memorization, not that the scores are derived from the paper's own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

AgroMind is a benchmark, so it introduces no physical or mathematical entities. Its claims rest on domain assumptions about label quality, absence of training contamination, the fairness of the evaluation protocol, and the representativeness of the human baseline. One free parameter, the open-ended cosine threshold, is fitted on the benchmark itself.

free parameters (1)
  • Open-ended answer cosine threshold = 0.60
    Used to decide whether open-ended model answers are correct. Selected via preliminary experiments on a benchmark subset so that all models achieve 'reasonable accuracy' (Appendix C.4). Directly affects reported open-ended and overall accuracies.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The source datasets' labels, masks, and vector annotations are accurate enough to serve as ground truth for the generated questions.
    All QA answers are derived from these annotations plus human authored reasoning chains (Section 3.2, Appendix B). Errors in source labels propagate to benchmark answers.
  • domain assumption The evaluated LMMs were not pretrained on the benchmark images, so their scores measure agricultural understanding rather than memorization.
    The benchmark reuses public datasets; the paper does not perform any contamination analysis (Section 5.1).
  • ad hoc to paper Concatenating multi-image questions into a single image preserves the difficulty of multi-image reasoning.
    All multi-image tasks are converted to single-image inputs for all models (Section 5.1), which may disadvantage multi-image models and change task demands.
  • domain assumption A non-expert student human baseline is a meaningful reference for 'human performance'.
    The human pool contains about twenty undergraduate and graduate students (Section 5.1, Appendix C.1); the abstract highlights that LMMs beat humans, which may be an artifact of the novice pool.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Can Large Multimodal Models Understand Agricultural Scenes? Benchmarking with AgroMind." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QEREYWCS

@misc{pith2026250512207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Can Large Multimodal Models Understand Agricultural Scenes? Benchmarking with AgroMind},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QEREYWCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12207}
}
read the original abstract

Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) has demonstrated capabilities across various domains, but comprehensive benchmarks for agricultural remote sensing (RS) remain scarce. Existing benchmarks designed for agricultural RS scenarios exhibit notable limitations, primarily in terms of insufficient scene diversity in the dataset and oversimplified task design. To bridge this gap, we introduce AgroMind, a comprehensive agricultural remote sensing benchmark covering four task dimensions: spatial perception, object understanding, scene understanding, and scene reasoning, with a total of 13 task types, ranging from crop identification and health monitoring to environmental analysis. We curate a high-quality evaluation set by integrating eight public datasets and one private farmland plot dataset, containing 27,247 QA pairs and 19,615 images. The pipeline begins with multi-source data pre-processing, including collection, format standardization, and annotation refinement. We then generate a diverse set of agriculturally relevant questions through the systematic definition of tasks. Finally, we employ LMMs for inference, generating responses, and performing detailed examinations. We evaluated 20 open-source LMMs and 4 closed-source models on AgroMind. Experiments reveal significant performance gaps, particularly in spatial reasoning and fine-grained recognition, it is notable that human performance lags behind several leading LMMs. By establishing a standardized evaluation framework for agricultural RS, AgroMind reveals the limitations of LMMs in domain knowledge and highlights critical challenges for future work. Data and code can be accessed at https://rssysu.github.io/AgroMind/.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the AgroMind conceptual framework for benchmarking agricultural scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison between AgroMind and previous works. Previous works focused on narrow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Dataset statistics from different aspects. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (33 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Statistical information of AgroMind. Challenge Dataset, CropHarvest[54], and Global Parcel Dataset. Through a selection process, we retained 20,850 images and generated 28,482 question-answer (QA) pairs from these visual data, ensuring comprehensive diversity across ag…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hierarchical task system of AgroMind. Based on the progressive cognitive pipeline in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The benchmark curation pipeline contains four stages, i.e., data pre-processing, question [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Model performance under different scales, with human responses and random an￾swers as references [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Geographical coverage map of datasets. phenology – covering growth cycles of many staple crops (maize, rice, oil palm, etc.). The rich geographic diversity of the dataset allows robust cross-regional generalization validation and provides foundational resources for glo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Examples of image datasets, with the bar chart showing the quantity of data in nine detailed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Performance of 5 leading LMMs, as well as that of the human and random guess on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: A question case of the spatial localization task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A question case of the spatial localization task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: A question case of the spatial relationship task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: A question case of the spatial relationship task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: A question case of the boundary detection task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: A question case of the boundary detection task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: A question case of the object classification task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: A question case of the object classification task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: A question case of the pest/disease diagnostics task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: A question case of the pest/disease diagnostics task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: A question case of the growth status recognition task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A question case of the growth status recognition task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: A question case of the scene comparison task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: A question case of the scene comparison task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: A question case of the counting task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2-26B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: A question case of the counting task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2-26B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: A question case of the area statistics task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2-26B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: A question case of the area statistics task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2-26B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: A question case of the visual prompt reasoning task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: A question case of the visual prompt reasoning task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: A question case of the anomaly reasoning task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p047_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: A question case of the anomaly reasoning task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: A question case of the climate type reasoning task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_33.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: A question case of the climate type reasoning task with responses from GPT-4o and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_34.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: A question case of the planning task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2-26B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_35.png]
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: A question case of the planning task with responses from GPT-4o and InternVL2-26B. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_36.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Remote sensing for agricultural applications: A meta-review,

    M. Weiss, F. Jacob, and G. Duveiller, “Remote sensing for agricultural applications: A meta-review,”Remote Sensing of Environment, vol. 236, p. 111402, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425719304213

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Zero hunger: future challenges and the way forward towards the achievement of sustainable development goal 2,

    F. Sporchia, M. Antonelli, A. Aguilar-Martínez, A. Bach-Faig, D. Caro, K. F. Davis, R. Sonnino, and A. Galli, “Zero hunger: future challenges and the way forward towards the achievement of sustainable development goal 2,” Sustainable earth reviews, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 10, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Wheat growth monitoring and yield estimation based on remote sensing data assimilation into the safy crop growth model,

    C. Ma, M. Liu, F. Ding, C. Li, Y . Cui, W. Chen, and Y . Wang, “Wheat growth monitoring and yield estimation based on remote sensing data assimilation into the safy crop growth model,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5473, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Challenges and opportunities in remote sensing-based crop monitoring: A review,

    B. Wu, M. Zhang, H. Zeng, F. Tian, A. B. Potgieter, X. Qin, N. Yan, S. Chang, Y . Zhao, Q. Dong et al., “Challenges and opportunities in remote sensing-based crop monitoring: A review,”National Science Review, vol. 10, no. 4, p. nwac290, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    A review of individual tree crown detection and delineation from optical remote sensing images: Current progress and future,

    J. Zheng, S. Yuan et al., “A review of individual tree crown detection and delineation from optical remote sensing images: Current progress and future,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Progress and prospects of crop diseases and pests monitoring by remote sensing,

    H. Wenjiang, S. Yue, D. Yingying, Y . Huichun, W. Mingquan, C. Bei, and L. Linyi, “Progress and prospects of crop diseases and pests monitoring by remote sensing,” Smart agriculture, vol. 1, no. 4, p. 1, 2019

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Advances in deep learning applications for plant disease and pest detection: A review,

    S. Wang, D. Xu, H. Liang, Y . Bai, X. Li, J. Zhou, C. Su, and W. Wei, “Advances in deep learning applications for plant disease and pest detection: A review,”Remote Sensing, vol. 17, no. 4, p. 698, 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    Evaluation of survey and remote sensing data products used to estimate land use change in the united states: Evolving issues and emerging opportunities,

    M. Wang, M. Wander, S. Mueller, N. Martin, and J. B. Dunn, “Evaluation of survey and remote sensing data products used to estimate land use change in the united states: Evolving issues and emerging opportunities,” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 129, pp. 68–78, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Fusu: A multi-temporal-source land use change segmentation dataset for fine-grained urban semantic understanding,

    S. Yuan, G. Lin, L. Zhang, R. Dong, J. Zhang, S. Chen, J. Zheng, J. Wang, and H. Fu, “Fusu: A multi-temporal-source land use change segmentation dataset for fine-grained urban semantic understanding,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.19055, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Multimodality helps unimodality: Cross-modal few-shot learning with multimodal models,

    Z. Lin, S. Yu, Z. Kuang, D. Pathak, and D. Ramanan, “Multimodality helps unimodality: Cross-modal few-shot learning with multimodal models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 19 325–19 337

    2023

  3. [11]

    Hello gpt-4o,

    OpenAI, “Hello gpt-4o,” https://openai.com/index/hello-gpt-4o/, 2024, accessed: 2025-04-22

    2024

  4. [12]

    Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,

    G. Team, R. Anil, S. Borgeaud, J.-B. Alayrac, J. Yu, R. Soricut, J. Schalkwyk, A. M. Dai, A. Hauth, K. Millican et al., “Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. 10

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,

    H. Touvron, T. Lavril, G. Izacard, X. Martinet, M.-A. Lachaux, T. Lacroix, B. Rozière, N. Goyal, E. Hambro, F. Azhar et al., “Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities,

    J. Bai, S. Bai, S. Yang, S. Wang, S. Tan, P. Wang, J. Lin, C. Zhou, and J. Zhou, “Qwen-vl: A frontier large vision-language model with versatile abilities,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12966, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 3, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    H2rsvlm: Towards helpful and honest remote sensing large vision language model,

    C. Pang, J. Wu, J. Li, Y . Liu, J. Sun, W. Li, X. Weng, S. Wang, L. Feng, G.-S. Xia et al., “H2rsvlm: Towards helpful and honest remote sensing large vision language model,” arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–2403, 2024

    2024

  8. [16]

    Vision-language models in remote sensing: Current progress and future trends,

    X. Li, C. Wen, Y . Hu, Z. Yuan, and X. X. Zhu, “Vision-language models in remote sensing: Current progress and future trends,” IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Magazine, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Urbench: A comprehensive benchmark for evaluating large multimodal models in multi-view urban scenarios,

    B. Zhou, H. Yang, D. Chen, J. Ye, T. Bai, J. Yu, S. Zhang, D. Lin, C. He, and W. Li, “Urbench: A comprehensive benchmark for evaluating large multimodal models in multi-view urban scenarios,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 10, 20...

    2025

  10. [18]

    Xlrs-bench: Could your multimodal llms understand extremely large ultra-high-resolution remote sensing imagery?

    F. Wang, H. Wang, M. Chen, D. Wang, Y . Wang, Z. Guo, Q. Ma, L. Lan, W. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Liu, and M. Sun, “Xlrs-bench: Could your multimodal llms understand extremely large ultra-high-resolution remote sensing imagery?” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23771

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Vrsbench: A versatile vision-language benchmark dataset for remote sensing image understanding,

    X. Li, J. Ding, and M. Elhoseiny, “Vrsbench: A versatile vision-language benchmark dataset for remote sensing image understanding,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, Eds., v...

    2024

  12. [20]

    A multimodal benchmark dataset and model for crop disease diagnosis,

    X. Liu, Z. Liu, H. Hu, Z. Chen, K. Wang, K. Wang, and S. Lian, “A multimodal benchmark dataset and model for crop disease diagnosis,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 157–170

    2024

  13. [21]

    Visual question answering model for fruit tree disease decision-making based on multimodal deep learning,

    Y . Lan, Y . Guo, Q. Chen, S. Lin, Y . Chen, and X. Deng, “Visual question answering model for fruit tree disease decision-making based on multimodal deep learning,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 13, p. 1064399, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Agri-llava: Knowledge-infused large multimodal assistant on agricultural pests and diseases,

    L. Wang, T. Jin, J. Yang, A. Leonardis, F. Wang, and F. Zheng, “Agri-llava: Knowledge-infused large multimodal assistant on agricultural pests and diseases,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.02158

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Agmmu: A comprehensive agri- cultural multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark,

    A. Gauba, I. Pi, Y . Man, Z. Pang, V . S. Adve, and Y .-X. Wang, “Agmmu: A comprehensive agri- cultural multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10568, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Agribench: A hierarchical agriculture benchmark for multimodal large language models,

    Y . Zhou and M. Ryo, “Agribench: A hierarchical agriculture benchmark for multimodal large language models,” CoRR, vol. abs/2412.00465, 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.00465

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    Rsgpt: A remote sensing vision language model and benchmark,

    Y . Hu, J. Yuan, C. Wen, X. Lu, Y . Liu, and X. Li, “Rsgpt: A remote sensing vision language model and benchmark,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing , vol. 224, pp. 272–286, 2025. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924271...

    2025

  18. [26]

    Earthvqa: towards queryable earth via relational reasoning-based remote sensing visual question answering,

    J. Wang, Z. Zheng, Z. Chen, A. Ma, and Y . Zhong, “Earthvqa: towards queryable earth via relational reasoning-based remote sensing visual question answering,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovati...

    2024 doi

  19. [27]

    Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi- enhanced large multimodal language model,

    D. Muhtar, Z. Li, F. Gu, X. Zhang, and P. Xiao, “Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi- enhanced large multimodal language model,” in Computer Vision – ECCV 2024, A. Leonardis, E. Ricci, S. Roth, O. Russakovsky, T. Sattler, and G. Varol, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switz...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Agrogpt : Efficient agricultural vision-language model with expert tuning,

    M. Awais, A. H. Salem Abdulla Alharthi, A. Kumar, H. Cholakkal, and R. M. Anwer, “Agrogpt : Efficient agricultural vision-language model with expert tuning,” in 2025 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2025, pp. 5687–5696

    2025

  21. [29]

    Gpt-4 technical report,

    J. Achiam, S. Adler, S. Agarwal, L. Ahmad, I. Akkaya, F. L. Aleman, D. Almeida, J. Altenschmidt, S. Altman, S. Anadkat et al. , “Gpt-4 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks,

    Z. Chen, J. Wu, W. Wang, W. Su, G. Chen, S. Xing, M. Zhong, Q. Zhang, X. Zhu, L. Luet al., “Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 20...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Llava-next-interleave: Tack- ling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models,

    F. Li, R. Zhang, H. Zhang, Y . Zhang, B. Li, W. Li, Z. Ma, and C. Li, “Llava-next-interleave: Tack- ling multi-image, video, and 3d in large multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07895, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,

    H. Liu, C. Li, Y . Li, and Y . J. Lee, “Improved baselines with visual instruction tuning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 26 296–26 306

    2024

  25. [33]

    Vila: On pre-training for visual language models,

    J. Lin, H. Yin, W. Ping, P. Molchanov, M. Shoeybi, and S. Han, “Vila: On pre-training for visual language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2024, pp. 26 689–26 699

    2024

  26. [34]

    Efficient prompt tuning of large vision- language model for fine-grained ship classification,

    L. Lan, F. Wang, X. Zheng, Z. Wang, and X. Liu, “Efficient prompt tuning of large vision- language model for fine-grained ship classification,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model,

    D. Muhtar, Z. Li, F. Gu, X. Zhang, and P. Xiao, “Lhrs-bot: Empowering remote sensing with vgi-enhanced large multimodal language model,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 440–457

    2024

  28. [36]

    Geochat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing,

    K. Kuckreja, M. S. Danish, M. Naseer, A. Das, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan, “Geochat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 27 831–27 840

    2024

  29. [37]

    Earthgpt: A universal multi-modal large language model for multi-sensor image comprehension in remote sensing domain,

    W. Zhang, M. Cai, T. Zhang, Y . Zhuang, and X. Mao, “Earthgpt: A universal multi-modal large language model for multi-sensor image comprehension in remote sensing domain,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Integrating deep learning for visual question answering in agricultural disease diagnostics: Case study of wheat rust,

    A. Nanavaty, R. Sharma, B. Pandita, O. Goyal, S. Rallapalli, M. Mandal, V . K. Singh, P. Narang, and V . Chamola, “Integrating deep learning for visual question answering in agricultural disease diagnostics: Case study of wheat rust,” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 28203, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Nocaps: Novel object captioning at scale,

    H. Agrawal, K. Desai, Y . Wang, X. Chen, R. Jain, M. Johnson, D. Batra, D. Parikh, S. Lee, and P. Anderson, “Nocaps: Novel object captioning at scale,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2019, pp. 8948–8957

    2019

  32. [40]

    Ok-vqa: A visual question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge,

    K. Marino, M. Rastegari, A. Farhadi, and R. Mottaghi, “Ok-vqa: A visual question answering benchmark requiring external knowledge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 3195–3204

    2019

  33. [41]

    Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering,

    Y . Goyal, T. Khot, D. Summers-Stay, D. Batra, and D. Parikh, “Making the v in vqa matter: Elevating the role of image understanding in visual question answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 6904–6913. 12

    2017

  34. [42]

    Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering,

    D. A. Hudson and C. D. Manning, “Gqa: A new dataset for real-world visual reasoning and compositional question answering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2019, pp. 6700–6709

    2019

  35. [43]

    Tap: Text-aware pre-training for text-vqa and text-caption,

    Z. Yang, Y . Lu, J. Wang, X. Yin, D. Florencio, L. Wang, C. Zhang, L. Zhang, and J. Luo, “Tap: Text-aware pre-training for text-vqa and text-caption,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 8751–8761

    2021

  36. [44]

    Mmmu: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for expert agi,

    X. Yue, Y . Ni, K. Zhang, T. Zheng, R. Liu, G. Zhang, S. Stevens, D. Jiang, W. Ren, Y . Sun et al., “Mmmu: A massive multi-discipline multimodal understanding and reasoning benchmark for expert agi,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Reco...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models,

    B. Li, Y . Ge, Y . Ge, G. Wang, R. Wang, R. Zhang, and Y . Shan, “Seed-bench: Benchmarking multimodal large language models,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 13 299–13 308

    2024

  38. [46]

    Mmt-bench: A comprehensive multimodal benchmark for evaluating large vision-language models towards multitask agi,

    K. Ying, F. Meng, J. Wang, Z. Li, H. Lin, Y . Yang, H. Zhang, W. Zhang, Y . Lin, S. Liuet al., “Mmt-bench: A comprehensive multimodal benchmark for evaluating large vision-language models towards multitask agi,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16006, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mme-realworld: Could your multimodal llm challenge high-resolution real-world scenarios that are difficult for humans?

    Y .-F. Zhang, H. Zhang, H. Tian, C. Fu, S. Zhang, J. Wu, F. Li, K. Wang, Q. Wen, Z. Zhanget al., “Mme-realworld: Could your multimodal llm challenge high-resolution real-world scenarios that are difficult for humans?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13257, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Oam-tcd: A globally diverse dataset of high-resolution tree cover maps,

    J. Veitch-Michaelis, A. Cottam, D. Schweizer, E. N. Broadbent, D. Dao, C. Zhang, A. A. Zambrano, and S. Max, “Oam-tcd: A globally diverse dataset of high-resolution tree cover maps,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.11743

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Growing status observation for oil palm trees using unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) images,

    J. Zheng, H. Fu, W. Li, W. Wu, L. Yu, S. Yuan, W. Y . W. Tao, T. K. Pang, and K. D. Kanniah, “Growing status observation for oil palm trees using unmanned aerial vehicle (uav) images,” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, vol. 173, pp. 95–121, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Agriculture- vision: A large aerial image database for agricultural pattern analysis,

    M. T. Chiu, X. Xu, Y . Wei, Z. Huang, A. G. Schwing, R. Brunner, H. Khachatrian, H. Karapetyan, I. Dozier, G. Rose, D. Wilson, A. Tudor, N. Hovakimyan, T. S. Huang, and H. Shi, “Agriculture- vision: A large aerial image database for agricultural pattern analysis,” in Proceedin...

    2020

  43. [51]

    PhenoBench — A Large Dataset and Benchmarks for Semantic Image Interpretation in the Agricultural Domain,

    J. Weyler, F. Magistri, E. Marks, Y . L. Chong, M. Sodano, G. Roggiolani, N. Chebrolu, C. Stachniss, and J. Behley, “PhenoBench — A Large Dataset and Benchmarks for Semantic Image Interpretation in the Agricultural Domain,”IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligen...

    2024

  44. [52]

    Ip102: A large-scale benchmark dataset for insect pest recognition,

    X. Wu, C. Zhan, Y . Lai, M.-M. Cheng, and J. Yang, “Ip102: A large-scale benchmark dataset for insect pest recognition,” in IEEE CVPR, 2019, pp. 8787–8796

    2019

  45. [53]

    Deep fruit detection in orchards,

    S. Bargoti and J. Underwood, “Deep fruit detection in orchards,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.03677, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cropharvest: A global dataset for crop-type classification,

    G. Tseng, I. Zvonkov, C. L. Nakalembe, and H. Kerner, “Cropharvest: A global dataset for crop-type classification,” in Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track (Round 2) , 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/f...

    2021

  47. [55]

    The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku,

    Anthropic, “The claude 3 model family: Opus, sonnet, haiku,” https://www.anthropic.com, 2024, accessed: 2025-04-22

    2024

  48. [56]

    Tinyllava: A framework of small-scale large multimodal models,

    B. Zhou, Y . Hu, X. Weng, J. Jia, J. Luo, X. Liu, J. Wu, and L. Huang, “Tinyllava: A framework of small-scale large multimodal models,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14289, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Internlm-xcomposer2: Mastering free-form text-image composition and comprehension in vision-language large model,

    X. Dong, P. Zhang, Y . Zang, Y . Cao, B. Wang, L. Ouyang, X. Wei, S. Zhang, H. Duan, M. Cao et al., “Internlm-xcomposer2: Mastering free-form text-image composition and comprehension in vision-language large model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16420, 2024. 13

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    InstructBLIP: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,

    W. Dai, J. Li, D. Li, A. Tiong, J. Zhao, W. Wang, B. Li, P. Fung, and S. Hoi, “InstructBLIP: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning,” in Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2023. [Online]. Available: https://open...

    2023

  51. [59]

    What matters when building vision- language models?

    H. Laurençon, L. Tronchon, M. Cord, and V . Sanh, “What matters when building vision- language models?” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 87 874– 87 907, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    Geochat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing,

    K. Kuckreja, M. S. Danish, M. Naseer, A. Das, S. Khan, and F. S. Khan, “Geochat: Grounded large vision-language model for remote sensing,” The IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024

    2024

  53. [61]

    Geollava-8k: Scaling remote-sensing multimodal large language models to 8k resolution,

    F. Wang, M. Chen, Y . Li, D. Wang, H. Wang, Z. Guo, Z. Wang, B. Shan, L. Lan, Y . Wanget al., “Geollava-8k: Scaling remote-sensing multimodal large language models to 8k resolution,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21375, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    Deepseek-vl2: Mixture-of-experts vision-language models for advanced multimodal under- standing,

    Z. Wu, X. Chen, Z. Pan, X. Liu, W. Liu, D. Dai, H. Gao, Y . Ma, C. Wu, B. Wang et al., “Deepseek-vl2: Mixture-of-experts vision-language models for advanced multimodal under- standing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10302, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Mantis: Interleaved multi-image instruction tuning,

    D. Jiang, X. He, H. Zeng, C. Wei, M. Ku, Q. Liu, and W. Chen, “Mantis: Interleaved multi-image instruction tuning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01483, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks,

    N. Reimers and I. Gurevych, “Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert- networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10084, 2019. 14 Can Large Multimodal Models Understand Agricultural Scenes? Benchmarking with AgroMind (Supplementary material) Table of Contents in Appendi...

    1908 arXiv

  57. [65]

    2021 UA V-captured oil palm trees; Instance-level bbox annotations for 5 growth states (Healthy, Dead, Mismanaged, etc.) 1024×1024 https://github. com/rs-dl/MOPAD CropHarvest Dataset 2021 Global-scale agricultural dataset; Multi-modal remote sensing data (Sentinel-1/2, SRTM, E...

    2021

  58. [66]

    com/PRBonn/ phenobench OAM-TCD Dataset

    2023 Hierarchical annotations: semantic segmentation (crop/weed), instance segmentation (plants/leaves), pixel-level visibility maps 1024×1024 https://github. com/PRBonn/ phenobench OAM-TCD Dataset

    2023

  59. [67]

    box-based

    2024 Global tree cover maps; Semantic segmentation masks; MS-COCO annotations (bbox, polygons); Geospatial metadata (EPSG:3395) 2048×2048 https: //zenodo.org/ records/11617167 Maize Tassel Identification 2025 High-resolution maize tassel images; YOLO-format bbox annotations; C...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.