AgroVisNet: A lightweight Convolutional Network and the BD-PlantDX Expert-Validated Benchmark for Radish, Potato and Pointed Gourd Disease Classification

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Automated plant disease diagnosis is increasingly deployed on farmer-held devices in regions where agronomic expertise is scarce and network connectivity is unreliable. Three obstacles limit its practical value: public benchmarks are dominated by a small set of non-native crops, region-specific datasets are rarely validated by domain experts, and the architectures that reach competitive accuracy carry parameter budgets that are unsuited to low-cost hardware. We propose AgroVisNet, a compact convolutional network trained from scratch, together with BD-PlantDX, an expert-validated benchmark of 12,432 field images spanning 12 classes of radish, potato and pointed gourd in healthy and diseased states, collected across the Bogura and Nilphamari districts of Bangladesh. AgroVisNet couples grouped bottleneck residual blocks carrying sequential channel and spatial attention with multi-scale depthwise blocks and a dual-pooling classification head, reaching 290,572 trainable parameters. On BD-PlantDX the model attains 99.52% test accuracy and 99.52% weighted F1, exceeding all six ImageNet-pretrained lightweight backbones evaluated under an identical protocol while using 8.7 to 16.8 times fewer parameters and 1.3 to 8.5 times fewer multiply-accumulate operations. Exported for deployment, the model quantises to a 0.46 MB full-integer network at a 0.22 percentage-point accuracy cost and classifies an image in 8.40 ms on a single CPU. Across five random seeds accuracy remains at 99.57 +- 0.10%, a ten-variant ablation isolates the contribution of each component, and the same architecture transfers without redesign to two independently collected datasets at 98.71% and 99.05% accuracy. Grad-CAM evidence indicates that predictions rest on lesion-bearing leaf regions rather than on background cues.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments