The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of deep learning vs machine learning in plant leaf disease detection
Abstract
Abstract Plants are recognized as essential as they are the primary source of humanity's energy production since they are having nutritious, medicinal, etc. values. At any time between crop farming, plant diseases can affect the leaf, resulting in enormous crop production damages and economic market value. Therefore, in the farming industry, identification of leaf disease plays a crucial role. It needs, however, enormous labor, greater preparation time, and comprehensive plant pathogen knowledge. For the identification of plant disease detection various machine learning (ML) as well as deep learning (DL) methods are developed & examined by various researchers, and many of the times they also got significant results in both cases. Motivated by those existing works, here in this article we are comparing the performance of ML (Support Vector Machine (SVM), Random Forest (RF), Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD)) & DL (Inception-v3, VGG-16, VGG-19) in terms of citrus plant disease detection. The disease classification accuracy (CA) we received by experimentation is quite impressive as DL methods perform better than that of ML methods in case of disease detection as follows: RF-76.8% > SGD-86.5% > SVM-87% > VGG-19–87.4% > Inception-v3–89% > VGG-16–89.5%. From the result, we can tell that RF is giving the least CA whereas VGG-16 is giving the best in terms of CA.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade: Second Edition
(2012) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-35289-8 · Cited by 2,116
Reliable Accuracy Estimates from k-Fold Cross Validation
Wong, T.-T., & Yeh, P.-Y. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2019.2912815 · Cited by 1,074
Cited by
Deep Learning-Based Leaf Disease Detection in Crops Using Images for Agricultural Applications
J., A., Eunice, J., Popescu, D. E., Chowdary, M. K., & Hemanth, J. (2022) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy12102395 · Cited by 409
Machine learning in agriculture domain: A state-of-art survey
Meshram, V., Patil, K., Meshram, V., Hanchate, D., & Ramkteke, S. D. (2021) · Artificial Intelligence in the Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ailsci.2021.100010 · Cited by 367
Jackulin, C., & Murugavalli, S. (2022) · Measurement: Sensors · doi:10.1016/j.measen.2022.100441 · Cited by 319
Tiwari, V., Joshi, R. C., & Dutta, M. K. (2021) · Ecological Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2021.101289 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Sujatha, R., Chatterjee, J. M., Jhanjhi, N., & Brohi, S. N.
- Venue
- Microprocessors and Microsystems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-02
- Volume
- 80
- Pages
- 103615
- ISSN
- 0141-9331 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3111432325
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 43.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance of deep learning vs machine learning in plant leaf disease detection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103615
- The paper
- Sujatha, R., Chatterjee, J. M., Jhanjhi, N., & Brohi, S. N. (2021). Performance of deep learning vs machine learning in plant leaf disease detection. Microprocessors and Microsystems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpro.2020.103615
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.