Cited by 406Smart Agriculture and AIAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsIndustrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection

Counting Apples and Oranges With Deep Learning: A Data-Driven Approach

Chen, Steven W., Shivakumar, Shreyas S., Dcunha, Sandeep, Das, Jnaneshwar, Okon, Edidiong, Qu, Chao, Taylor, Camillo J., Kumar, Vijay·2017·IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters

Abstract

This paper describes a fruit counting pipeline based on deep learning that accurately counts fruit in unstructured environments. Obtaining reliable fruit counts is challenging because of variations in appearance due to illumination changes and occlusions from foliage and neighboring fruits. We propose a novel approach that uses deep learning to map from input images to total fruit counts. The pipeline utilizes a custom crowdsourcing platform to quickly label large data sets. A blob detector based on a fully convolutional network extracts candidate regions in the images. A counting algorithm based on a second convolutional network then estimates the number of fruits in each region. Finally, a linear regression model maps that fruit count estimate to a final fruit count. We analyze the performance of the pipeline on two distinct data sets of oranges in daylight, and green apples at night, utilizing human generated labels as ground truth. We also show that the pipeline has a short training time and performs well with a limited data set size. Our method generalizes across both data sets and is able to perform well even on highly occluded fruits that are challenging for human labelers to annotate.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/lra.2017.2651944

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, S. W., Shivakumar, S. S., Dcunha, S., Das, J., Okon, E., Qu, C., Taylor, C. J., & Kumar, V.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Venue
IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters
Published
2017-04
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
781-788
ISSN
  • 2377-3766 (ISSN-L)
  • 2377-3774
OpenAlex
W2578363764
Cited by
406
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 4
FWCI
40.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2015-67021-23857)
  • National Robotics Initiative
  • National Science Foundation (CNS-1521617)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering › Industrial Vision Systems and Defect Detection
Keywords
fruit counting, apple, orange, object counting, occlusion, illumination variation, crowdsourcing, image annotation, blob detection, fully convolutional network, linear regression

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