2018 4th Iranian Conference on Signal Processing and Intelligent Systems (ICSPIS)
Leaf Classification for Plant Recognition with Deep
Transfer Learning
Ali Beikmohammadi
Department of Electrical Engineering
Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)
Tehran, Iran
dr.abm@aut.ac.ir
Abstract—Plant recognition systems that developed by
computer vision researchers, help botanists in faster recognition
and detection of unknown plant species. Until now, multiple
studies focused on the process or algorithms that maximize use of
botanical datasets for plants prediction modeling, but this
method depends on leaf characteristics which can be changed
with botanical data and different feature extraction techniques.
On the other hand, recently, due to the popularity and successful
implementation of deep learning-based methods in various areas
such as image classification, object detection, and speech
recognition, the researchers directed from traditional feature-
based methods to deep learning. In this research, one more
efficient method presented that use transfer learning to recognize
plant for leaf classification, which first uses a pre-trained deep
neural network model for learning useful leaf characteristics
directly from the input data representation. Then use a logistic
regression classifier for leaf classification. It is seen that transfer
learning from a large dataset to limited botanical dataset in plant
recognition task is well done. The proposed method is evaluated
on two well-known botanical datasets, i.e., Flavia with 32 classes
and Leafsnap with 184 classes, and has succeeded in achieving an
accuracy of 99.6% and 90.54%, respectively. The results show
that despite the large change in the number of classes in these two
datasets, the proposed method, have a good performance and
show the better result than methods based on the hand-crafted
feature and other methods based on the deep learning in terms of
memory and precision.
Keywords—leaf classification; plant recognition; deep learning;
transfer learning; MobileNet
I. INTRODUCTION
One of the most important issues in agronomy for plant
researches and agronomy products is plant recognition and
classification (about 50 thousand species) [1-3]. A good
understanding of plants for help to recognize new and rare
plant species is essential for improving pharmaceutical
industries, the eco-system balance, agronomy utilization and
robustness [4]. Botanists use variations on the leaf
characteristics as a comparative tool for their study about plants
[4, 5]. On the other hand, due to the progress of science and
genetic topics, many of the compound plants cannot recognize
by ordinary people or even expert people in this field [6]. For
this reason, tried to use computer vision or machine learning
techniques to solve this issue [7, 8].
978-1-7281-1194-0/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Karim Faez
Department of Electrical Engineering
Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic)
Tehran, Iran
kfaez@aut.ac.ir
In computer vision, despite the many efforts that have been
conducted, plant recognition seems as a challenging and
unsolved issue [1, 3, 9-12]. This is because a plant in nature has
a very similar shape and color representation that is shown in
Fig. 1. In addition to plants leaf morphological variations such
as changes in the size, texture, shape, venation, and so on, has
been added to this challenging issue.
Characteristics such as shape [13-15], texture [16-18] and
venation [10, 19] are features that generally used for
recognition leaves of different species. Two basic types of
feature representation methods for describing leaf images are
hand-crafted features [10, 13, 16] and deep learning features [7,
20-22]. In practice, the design of hand-crafted features depends
on the ability of computer vision experts in encoding
morphological characteristics that predefined by botanists [20].
However, the deep learning features are able to be
automatically learned based on the advantage of deep learning
algorithms. Representation based on learning (especially deep
learning), introduce end-to-end concept by using a trainable
feature extractor and in continue of that introduce trainable
classifier [23, 24]. Deep learning is a new and modern method
for image processing and data analysis that show high potential
and promising results. Deep learning has been successful in
various fields and recently entered in the field of agronomy and
food products [8]. Therefore, leaf recognition based on deep
learning methods has attracted more attention.
In any way, the training of a new deep learning model from
the beginning requires a lot of data, cost, more computing
resources and hours, in some cases, days of training. On the
other hand, in real applications, collecting and labeling large
amounts of data in a particular domain is costly and time-
consuming issues, and may even be impossible. Therefore, in
many cases, the idea of collecting a large number of data in a
particular domain may not be acceptable [25, 26]. This
problem poses a challenge and makes it difficult to use deep
learning models. The researchers believe, the reason that
humans in their lives were able to learn thousands of species on
just a few examples is that they were able to obtain this ability
by collecting knowledge over time and transferring it to new
objects for learning them [27]. In fact, the researchers believe
that recognizing the objects in the past helps in learning new
objects by their similarity and relation to new objects. Based on
this idea, some studies show that deep learning models that
trained for a classification task can be used for new
classification task [28-30]. Thus, trained Convolutional Neural
Network (CNN) models on a dataset, after fine-tune can be
used for a new task even in a different domain [31-33]. This
concept is known as transfer learning. The use of transfer
learning to adapt existing neural models for translation, speech
synthesis, and visual classification tasks in the areas of object
recognition, image classification, and many other domains
have been successful [34].
Basically, transfer learning is possible in two ways:
• Keeping the pre-trained network and updating the
weights based on the new training dataset.
• Using the pre-trained neural network as a feature
extractor and then representing with the help of a
generic classifier, such as a logistic regression for
classification [35].
In fact, this can be said to be a convenient way to bootstrap
your learning process. The second method has been successful
for many detection and classification tasks [36-38]. Our
proposed method also belongs to the second category for the
classification of plants. In fact, the main idea is to test the latest
CNN-based models and architectures and combine it as a
feature extractor with a logistic regression classifier. We have
reviewed deep models scores that previously presented such as
AlexNet [39], GoogleNet [40], ResNet [41], Xception [42],
VGG16 [43], VGG19 [43], ResNet50 [44], InceptionV3 [45],
InceptionResNetV2 [46] and MobileNet [47]. Based on
experiments, MobileNet is selected as a feature extractor for
classifying the leaves. Then a logistic regression as a generic
classifier for leaf classification has been used. The remaining
sections of the paper are as follows: related work, proposed
method, experimentations and results, and conclusions are
presented in sections II, III, IV and V respectively.
Fig. 1. An example of the Flavia leaf images dataset [55]. It can be seen that
all plant species have almost the same shape and color.
22
II. RELATED WORK
This section discusses state-of-the-art methods for plant
classification using hand-crafted and deep learning
representation as a feature extractor.
A. Hand-crafted Features
There are many hand-crafted features for the images of
plant leaf that can be divided into three general categories,
shape [1, 2, 13-15, 48], texture [16-18, 49], venation [10, 19].
Most studies use shape recognition techniques for modeling
and represent the shape of leaf contours. In one of the first
papers in this field, Neto et al. [13] introduced discriminant
analysis and Elliptical Fourier for detection of various plant
species based on their leaf shape. Subsequently, two modeling
approaches based on invariant-moments and centroid-radii
were proposed [48]. The Shape Context (SC) and the
Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) are also used to create
a leaf shape descriptor [14, 15]. Kumar et al. [1] proposed
Histogram of Curvature over Scale (HoCS) for leaf analysis.
Hall et al. [2] proposed a method using Hand Crafted Shape
(HCS) and HoCS for analyzing the leaves.
The texture is another important field of study in plant
recognition and it is used to describe the leaf surface based on
the distribution of pixels over a region. One of the oldest
studies [49] has used multi-scale fractal dimension for plant
classifications. Subsequently, Cope et al. [18] use the analysis
of leaf margins to classify species and proposed a method by
using Gabor co-occurrences in plant texture classification.
Naresh and Nagendraswamy [16] corrected the conventional
Local Binary Patterns (LBP). They take into account the
structural relationship between neighbor pixels and use it to
replace the hard threshold method that used in the conventional
LBP. Tang et al. [17] introduced a new texture extraction
method based on a combination of Gray Level Co-Occurrence
Matrix (GLCM) and LBP to classify tea leaves.
The venation of the plant leaf is also widely used as a leaf
characteristic. Charters et al. [10] designed a new descriptor
named EAGLE, which consists of five patches of the sample
that is tuned to capture and extract spatial relationships
between the local regions of venation. They showed that the
combination of EAGLE and SURF would improve the
discriminative ability of feature representation. Larese et al.
[19] recognize different types of legumes based on the
venation. They first segmented the vein pattern using the Hit or
Miss Transform (UHMT) and then used LEAF GUI criteria to
extract a set of venation features. In addition, a significant
amount of research combines the mentioned features to show
plants leaves. For example, attempts have been made to
combine the shape and texture of the leaves in [11, 50] and
then continue with the addition of leaf color features [9].
Although the above methods have been successful, it
should be noted that the performance of these solutions
depends heavily on the set of selected features that are
themselves dependent on the task or dataset. As a result, in
studies on species recognition, the search for an effective
subset of the features for showing leaf samples has been
disturbed. On the other hand, this feature engineering process is
difficult and requires expertise and experience in that particular
field. Due to these limitations, research has led to a deep
learning-based approach.
B. Deep Learning Features
Recently, several plant leaf recognition methods based on
deep learning have been proposed [7, 20-22, 51]. Liu et al. [21]
use a traditional CNN to extract features and then use a support
vector machine (SVM) to classify leaf images. Guillermo et al.
[22] first segmented the vein pattern using UHMT to create
vein binary segmented images, then they substitute original
input images with these binary segmented images to train a
CNN. Lee et al. [7] proposed the DeepPlant network to
recognize plant leaf images. In addition, they use
deconvolutional network [52] to gain insight into the selected
features of the CNN model. Lee et al. [20] in continue with
their previous work, proposed a two-stream convolutional
neural network (TwoCNN). The TwoCNN is a two-stream
feature learning that trained on the whole and patch of images
respectively. Although TwoCNN can take discriminative
information on a variety of scales (both the whole and the
patches of images), the training process requires a more
complex sample set. Because you have to provide both whole
images and segmented images for this network. Hu et al. [51]
tried to use a combination of multi-scale features with a
convolution neural network called MSF-CNN to classify plant
leaves on multiple scales. In this way, the multi-scale features
trained by the MSF-CNN are fused step-by-step and do not
require multiple learning branches.
However, deep learning methods also have some
limitations. If the number of available images is less than the
number of images required for state-of-the-art based models
such as GoogleNet network, we will be challenged to train the
network. As mentioned above, Transfer Learning is a useful
technique in this situation. If your task is similar to a problem
that network has already been trained for it, you can use the
transfer learning to modify network to use it in your problem
with a small set of labeled images. In fact, in transfer learning
method, can solve data limitation problem with the use of a
pre-trained networks as a source architecture for train target
models on small datasets [53].
Fortunately, the winner models of the ImageNet Large
Scale Visual Recognition Challenge (ILSVRC), such as
AlexNet [39], GoogleNet [40], ResNet [41], Xception [42],
VGG16 [43], VGG19 [43], ResNet50 [44], InceptionV3 [45],
InceptionResNetV2 [46] and MobileNet [47], are publicly
available as pre-trained networks. These networks can be used
for transfer learning. In this paper, we are going to introduce a
transfer learning-based method for the task of plant
classification.
III. PROPOSED METHOD
Transfer learning is very useful with the use of deep CNNs
to train a model with a limited size dataset. This is because
CNNs on a small dataset surely get overfitting. To overcome
this problem, the number of training data should be increased.
But providing a large amount of training data is very difficult
and costly.
23
In this situation, transfer learning will be beneficial and
solves this problem by using a pre-trained deep representation
as a source architecture for creating a new architecture [54].
Actually, with transfer learning, we use an existing trained
model and adapt it to our own problem. We rely on the features
and concepts learned during the basic model training. We use
the features learned from ImageNet datasets by a convolutional
DNN with discard final classification layer, and combine it
with a logistic regression as a generic classifier that predicts
our class labels in the new domain. We easily reuse the pre-
trained features. To do this, we can train all the weights of the
modified network or train only the weights of the new
predictive layer (that is, the logistic regression classifier). We
use the second method in this paper.
In fact, first, by the pre-end layer of MobileNet
architecture, whose weights were pre-trained on the ImageNet
dataset and imagined to be frozen for our purpose, for each 224
x 224 pixels input image, a 50176-component feature vector is
extracted. Then, the set of these feature vectors is used to train
a logistic regression classifier. The training parameters for
logistic regression classifier are: Penalty L2, Tolerance 1e-4,
Liblinear Solver, Maximum Iteration 100, Verbose 0, and OVR
Method.
In this paper, after checking the latest CNN-based models
and architectures, MobileNet [47] selected as a source
architecture to solve the plant recognition problem with the
help of a generic classifier. The MobileNet is trained on the
ImageNet dataset and received an RGB image with a size of
224 x 224 pixels and classified into its corresponding class.
This architecture consists of fourteen convolutional layers and
thirteen Depthwise convolutional layers that are one among
each other, a fully connected layer and a softmax classifier
[47]. This architecture includes 4.2 million parameters. As
shown in the block diagram in fig. 2, We have used this model
as a feature extractor and followed by that use a Logistic
regression classifier to leaf classification. The proposed work
offers an interesting combination of deep learning and generic
classifier, which causes an increase in leaf classification
efficiency. In addition, with a 17MB of storage space for
MobileNet weights, this can be done for mobile application.
IV. EXPERIMENTATIONS AND RESULTS
This section discusses the conduction of the experiment, the
training process and the test results of the proposed method.
Using the MobileNet model as a feature extractor, for each
input image 50176 features extracted, which set of this called
feature vector. Further, with the help of the image label and this
feature vector, the logistic regression classifier was trained to
predict the target class. The proposed method is tested on two
known botanical datasets Flavia [55] and Leafsnap [1] with 32
and 184 classes.
The input of the MobileNet trained on the ImageNet dataset
is an RGB 224 x 224 image, which we will preserve the same
for our inputs, and resize them to this size and consider them as
network inputs. An explanation of these datasets and a
comparative analysis is provided in the following sections.
 TABLE I. COMPARE PERFORMANCE ON THE FLAVIA LEAF DATASET
[55]. DL REPRESENTS A DEEP LEARNING-BASED APPROACH.
Year DL Feature Classifier Accuracy
Rate (%)
- Y MobileNet Logistic 99.6
Regression
2017 Y DeepPlant [20] MLP 99.4
2015 N HCF [2] RF 91.2
2015 N HCF-ScaleRobust [2] RF 89.8
2015 N Combine [2] Sum rule 97.3
(RF)
2015 N Morphological,FD,SDF ANN 96.0
[56]
2015 N HOG (Multi-scale Gaussian 94.7
Fig. 2. Proposed system overview, first row represents the source window) [20] SVM
architecture and second row shows the target architecture. 2016 N Modified LBP [16] NN 97.6

TABLE II. COMPARES THE PERFORMANCE ON THE LEAFSNAP LEAF

A. Evaluation on Flavia leaf dataset DATASET [1]. DL SHOWS A DEEP LEARNING-BASED APPROACH.

Wu et al. [55] introduced one of the famous datasets in leaf
recognition field that is called Flavia. This dataset contains
1907 leaf images from 32 different species. The size of each
image is 1,200 x 1600 pixels that samples of them are shown in
Fig. 1. We such as [20], consider all leaf samples from each
class, and 10 samples selected randomly for testing. We have
considered the whole leaf image as an input and did not use the
image patches. Finally, we compared our results with the other
state-of-the-art methods that previously presented in terms of
average accuracy.
In Table 1, we can see that MobileNet model using logistic
regression classifier with the best average of classification
accuracy with 99.6%, and this method outperforms other state-
of-the-art methods that using the shape and statistics features
[2, 56], texture features [16, 57] or deep learning features [20].
Based on these empirical results, it is possible to find out that
the learned features with the unsupervised method are good for
plants leaf representation. The superiority of the proposed
approach compared with DeepPlant [20] does not limit to
precision, but since the MobileNet model has fewer
parameters, less depth, and less memory requirements for the
storage of weights than the AlexNet model, the proposed
method will be faster and can be used on a mobile application.
The reason for all these excellences can be found in the
extraordinary architecture of MobileNet.
B. Evaluation on Leafsnap leaf dataset
For more researches in leaf recognition field, Kumar et al.
[1] published the Leafsnap dataset that includes images of
leaves taken from two different sources and also segmentation
produced automatically for them, as follows are:
• 23147 Laboratory photo, consisting of high-quality
images of compact leaves, from the Smithsonian
series. These images are provided in several samples
for any plant in versions with controlled background
and foreground lighting.
Year DL Method Rank-1
identification rate
- Y MobileNet 90.54
2018 Y MSF-CNN [51] 85.28
2018 Y Plain-CNN [51] 83.35
2017 Y DeepPlant [20] 54.77
This dataset currently covers 184 tree species from the
northeastern United States. In this work, only the field images
are used because they are closer to real images for the
evaluation of the proposed method. Since the Leafsnap
training, validation and testing set are not available for
researchers individually, so in this paper like [51], experiments
are performed by randomly dividing the dataset into two parts.
So that half will be used for training and the other half will be
used for testing. This process is repeated 5 times and the
average cumulative match curve (CMC) [58, 59] is computed
as the final result. Euclidean distance is used as a similarity
criterion between a pair of plant leaf images.
The performance on the Leafsnap dataset is shown in Fig.
3. Hu et al. [51] have been able to retrain DeepPlant [20] on
Leafsnap and found that DeepPlant to be very difficult
convergent. As shown in Fig. 3 and Table 2, while rank-1
identification rates of the MSF-CNN [51] and DeepPlant are
85.28% and 54.77%, respectively, the rank-1 identification rate
of proposed method gained 90.54%. In addition, it can be seen
that the proposed method has obtained a better CMC curve
than MSF-CNN and DeepPlant.
The results show that the proposed method has lower
attenuation in its performance in comparison with other
methods that have proposed their results on these two datasets
and because of that, we will ensure its performance stability
against different datasets. The reason for this loss of
performance is due to the presence of more classes and an
increase in between class similarities due to the proximity of
different classes to each other.

• 7719 Field images, consisting of ordinary outdoor It should be noted that since none of the previous work in
images provided with a mobile phone (often by this area has mentioned the processing time, so a fair
iPhone). These images contain a variety of blur, noise, comparison cannot be made from this view. However, due to
lighting patterns, shadows and so on. the use of the MobileNet architecture, it can be ensured that our

24
proposed method has a remarkable advantage in terms of
processing time than other deep learning based methods.
V. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we find with various experiments that the
combination of the pre-trained MobileNet deep neural network
architecture with the logistic regression classifier show good
accuracy for plant leaf classification. MobileNet trained for the
new task as a feature extractor machine and logistic regression
classifier trained on the target dataset.
It has been shown that with the help of the transfer learning
technique, we can save in time and computation resource and
be successful in learning a new task by limited training dataset.
In addition, the proposed method works directly with RGB
images and thus eliminate the needs of pre-processing and
hand-craft feature extraction. The efficiency of the proposed
method is evaluated on two botanical datasets, Flavia and
Leafsnap, and precision of 99.6% and 90.54% achieved
respectively. The comparative analysis confirms that the
proposed method outperforms the similar state-of-the-art
methods for plant recognition using transfer learning.
Fig. 3. shows the CMC curve and rank-1 identification rates (R1) on
Leafsnap leaf datasets [1]. (up) the proposed method, (down) introduced
methods in [20, 51].
25
REFERENCES
[1] N. Kumar et al., “Leafsnap: A computer vision system for automatic
plant species identification,” in Computer vision–ECCV 2012: Springer,
2012, pp. 502-516.
[2] D. Hall, C. McCool, F. Dayoub, N. Sunderhauf, and B. Upcroft,
“Evaluation of features for leaf classification in challenging conditions,”
in Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), 2015 IEEE Winter
Conference on, 2015, pp. 797-804: IEEE.
[3] C. Kalyoncu and Ö. Toygar, “Geometric leaf classification,” Computer
Vision and Image Understanding, vol. 133, pp. 102-109, 2015.
[4] J. S. Cope, D. Corney, J. Y. Clark, P. Remagnino, and P. Wilkin, “Plant
species identification using digital morphometrics: A review,” Expert
Systems with Applications, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 7562-7573, 2012.
[5] J. Clarke et al., “Venation pattern analysis of leaf images,” in
International Symposium on Visual Computing, 2006, pp. 427-436:
Springer.
[6] K. P. Ferentinos, “Deep learning models for plant disease detection and
diagnosis,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 145, pp. 311-
318, 2018.
[7] S. H. Lee, C. S. Chan, P. Wilkin, and P. Remagnino, “Deep-plant: Plant
identification with convolutional neural networks,” in Image Processing
(ICIP), 2015 IEEE International Conference on, 2015, pp. 452-456:
IEEE.
[8] A. Kamilaris and F. X. Prenafeta-Boldú, “Deep learning in agriculture:
A survey,” Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 147, pp. 70-
90, 2018.
[9] A. Kadir, L. E. Nugroho, A. Susanto, and P. I. Santosa, “Leaf
classification using shape, color, and texture features,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1401.4447, 2013.
[10] J. Charters, Z. Wang, Z. Chi, A. C. Tsoi, and D. D. Feng, “Eagle: a
novel descriptor for identifying plant species using leaf lamina vascular
features,” in Multimedia and Expo Workshops (ICMEW), 2014 IEEE
International Conference on, 2014, pp. 1-6: IEEE.
[11] T. Beghin, J. S. Cope, P. Remagnino, and S. Barman, “Shape and texture
based plant leaf classification,” in International Conference on
Advanced Concepts for Intelligent Vision Systems, 2010, pp. 345-353:
Springer.
[12] J. S. Cope, P. Remagnino, S. Barman, and P. Wilkin, “The extraction of
venation from leaf images by evolved vein classifiers and ant colony
algorithms,” in International Conference on Advanced Concepts for
Intelligent Vision Systems, 2010, pp. 135-144: Springer.
[13] J. C. Neto, G. E. Meyer, D. D. Jones, and A. K. Samal, “Plant species
identification using Elliptic Fourier leaf shape analysis,” Computers and
electronics in agriculture, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 121-134, 2006.
[14] S. Mouine, I. Yahiaoui, and A. Verroust-Blondet, “Advanced shape
context for plant species identification using leaf image retrieval,” in
Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international conference on multimedia
retrieval, 2012, p. 49: ACM.
[15] X.-Y. Xiao, R. Hu, S.-W. Zhang, and X.-F. Wang, “HOG-based
approach for leaf classification,” in Advanced intelligent computing
theories and applications. with aspects of artificial intelligence: Springer,
2010, pp. 149-155.
[16] Y. Naresh and H. Nagendraswamy, “Classification of medicinal plants:
an approach using modified LBP with symbolic representation,”
Neurocomputing, vol. 173, pp. 1789-1797, 2016.
[17] Z. Tang, Y. Su, M. J. Er, F. Qi, L. Zhang, and J. Zhou, “A local binary
pattern based texture descriptors for classification of tea leaves,”
Neurocomputing, vol. 168, pp. 1011-1023, 2015.
[18] J. S. Cope, P. Remagnino, S. Barman, and P. Wilkin, “Plant texture
classification using gabor co-occurrences,” in International Symposium
on Visual Computing, 2010, pp. 669-677: Springer.
[19] M. G. Larese, R. Namías, R. M. Craviotto, M. R. Arango, C. Gallo, and
P. M. Granitto, “Automatic classification of legumes using leaf vein
image features,” Pattern Recognition, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 158-168, 2014.
[20] S. H. Lee, C. S. Chan, S. J. Mayo, and P. Remagnino, “How deep
learning extracts and learns leaf features for plant classification,” Pattern
Recognition, vol. 71, pp. 1-13, 2017.
[21] Z. Liu et al., “Hybrid Deep Learning for Plant Leaves Classification,” in
International Conference on Intelligent Computing, 2015, pp. 115-123:
Springer.
[22] G. L. Grinblat, L. C. Uzal, M. G. Larese, and P. M. Granitto, “Deep
learning for plant identification using vein morphological patterns,”
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, vol. 127, pp. 418-424, 2016.
[23] F. Zhu, L. Shao, J. Xie, and Y. Fang, “From handcrafted to learned
representations for human action recognition: A survey,” Image and
Vision Computing, vol. 55, pp. 42-52, 2016.
[24] A. B. Sargano, P. Angelov, and Z. Habib, “A comprehensive review on
handcrafted and learning-based action representation approaches for
human activity recognition,” applied sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 110,
2017.
[25] X. Cao, Z. Wang, P. Yan, and X. Li, “Transfer learning for pedestrian
detection,” Neurocomputing, vol. 100, pp. 51-57, 2013.
[26] D. Wu, F. Zhu, and L. Shao, “One shot learning gesture recognition
from rgbd images,” in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops (CVPRW), 2012 IEEE Computer Society Conference on,
2012, pp. 7-12: IEEE.
[27] L. Fei-Fei, “Knowledge transfer in learning to recognize visual objects
classes,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Development and Learning (ICDL), 2006, p. 11.
[28] H. Azizpour, A. Sharif Razavian, J. Sullivan, A. Maki, and S. Carlsson,
“From generic to specific deep representations for visual recognition,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition workshops, 2015, pp. 36-45.
[29] K. Chatfield, K. Simonyan, A. Vedaldi, and A. Zisserman, “Return of
the devil in the details: Delving deep into convolutional nets,” arXiv
preprint arXiv:1405.3531, 2014.
[30] M. Oquab, L. Bottou, I. Laptev, and J. Sivic, “Learning and transferring
mid-level image representations using convolutional neural networks,”
in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition, 2014, pp. 1717-1724.
[31] R. Girshick, J. Donahue, T. Darrell, and J. Malik, “Rich feature
hierarchies for accurate object detection and semantic segmentation,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition, 2014, pp. 580-587.
[32] H. Nam and B. Han, “Learning multi-domain convolutional neural
networks for visual tracking,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2016, pp. 4293-4302.
[33] H. Noh, S. Hong, and B. Han, “Learning deconvolution network for
semantic segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE international
conference on computer vision, 2015, pp. 1520-1528.
[34] L. Shao, F. Zhu, and X. Li, “Transfer learning for visual categorization:
A survey,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems,
vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 1019-1034, 2015.
[35] M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus, “Visualizing and understanding
convolutional networks,” in European conference on computer vision,
2014, pp. 818-833: Springer.
[36] H. Azizpour, A. Sharif Razavian, J. Sullivan, A. Maki, and S. Carlsson,
“From generic to specific deep representations for visual recognition,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition workshops, 2015, pp. 36-45.
[37] A. Sharif Razavian, H. Azizpour, J. Sullivan, and S. Carlsson, “CNN
features off-the-shelf: an astounding baseline for recognition,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition workshops, 2014, pp. 806-813.
[38] A. Bux, X. Wang, P. P. Angelov, and Z. Habib, “Human action
recognition using transfer learning with deep representations,” 2017.
[39] A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton, “Imagenet classification
with deep convolutional neural networks,” in Advances in neural
information processing systems, 2012, pp. 1097-1105.
[40] C. Szegedy et al., “Going deeper with convolutions,” in Proceedings of
the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015,
pp. 1-9.
[41] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image
recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision
and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770-778.
26
[42] F. Chollet, “Xception: Deep learning with depthwise separable
convolutions,” arXiv preprint, p. 1610.02357, 2017.
[43] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for
large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556, 2014.
[44] K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image
recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision
and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770-778.
[45] C. Szegedy, V. Vanhoucke, S. Ioffe, J. Shlens, and Z. Wojna,
“Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision,” in
Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern
recognition, 2016, pp. 2818-2826.
[46] C. Szegedy, S. Ioffe, V. Vanhoucke, and A. A. Alemi, “Inception-v4,
inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning,” in
AAAI, 2017, vol. 4, p. 12.
[47] A. G. Howard et al., “Mobilenets: Efficient convolutional neural
networks for mobile vision applications,” arXiv preprint
arXiv:1704.04861, 2017.
[48] J. Chaki and R. Parekh, “Plant leaf recognition using shape based
features and neural network classifiers,” International Journal of
Advanced Computer Science and Applications, vol. 2, no. 10, 2011.
[49] A. R. Backes and O. M. Bruno, “Plant leaf identification using multi-
scale fractal dimension,” in International Conference On Image Analysis
And Processing, 2009, pp. 143-150: Springer.
[50] J. Chaki, R. Parekh, and S. Bhattacharya, “Plant leaf recognition using
texture and shape features with neural classifiers,” Pattern Recognition
Letters, vol. 58, pp. 61-68, 2015.
[51] J. Hu, Z. Chen, M. Yang, R. Zhang, and Y. Cui, “A Multiscale Fusion
Convolutional Neural Network for Plant Leaf Recognition,” IEEE
Signal Processing Letters, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 853-857, 2018.
[52] E. Shelhamer, J. Long, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for
semantic segmentation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.06211, 2016.
[53] M. D. Zeiler and R. Fergus, “Visualizing and understanding
convolutional networks,” in European conference on computer vision,
2014, pp. 818-833: Springer.
[54] Y.-C. Su, T.-H. Chiu, C.-Y. Yeh, H.-F. Huang, and W. H. Hsu,
“Transfer Learning for Video Recognition with Scarce Training Data for
Deep Convolutional Neural Network,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.4127,
2014.
[55] S. G. Wu, F. S. Bao, E. Y. Xu, Y.-X. Wang, Y.-F. Chang, and Q.-L.
Xiang, “A leaf recognition algorithm for plant classification using
probabilistic neural network,” in Signal Processing and Information
Technology, 2007 IEEE International Symposium on, 2007, pp. 11-16:
IEEE.
[56] A. Aakif and M. F. Khan, “Automatic classification of plants based on
their leaves,” Biosystems Engineering, vol. 139, pp. 66-75, 2015.
[57] A. Olsen, S. Han, B. Calvert, P. Ridd, and O. Kenny, “In situ leaf
classification using histograms of oriented gradients,” in Digital Image
Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA), 2015 International
Conference on, 2015, pp. 1-8: IEEE.
[58] D. Gray, S. Brennan, and H. Tao, “Evaluating appearance models for
recognition, reacquisition, and tracking,” in Proc. IEEE International
Workshop on Performance Evaluation for Tracking and Surveillance
(PETS), 2007, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 1-7: Citeseer.
[59] J. Zhu, H. Zeng, S. Liao, Z. Lei, C. Cai, and L. X. Zheng, “Deep hybrid
similarity learning for person re-identification,” IEEE Transactions on
Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2017.