sensors

Article
A Smartphone-Based Detection System for Tomato Leaf Disease
Using EfficientNetV2B2 and Its Explainability with Artificial
Intelligence (AI)
Anjan Debnath 1,† , Md. Mahedi Hasan 1, , M. Raihan 1, * , Nadim Samrat 1,† , Mashael M. Alsulami 2 ,
Mehedi Masud 3 and Anupam Kumar Bairagi 4, *

1 Department of Computer Science and Engineering, North Western University, Khulna 9100, Bangladesh;
[email protected] (A.D.); [email protected] (M.M.H.);
[email protected] (N.S.)
2 Department of Information Technology, College of Computers and Information Technology, Taif University,
Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
3 Department of Computer Science, College of Computers and Information Technology, Taif University,
Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia; [email protected]
4 Computer Science and Engineering Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna 9208, Bangladesh
* Correspondence: [email protected] (M.R.); [email protected] (A.K.B.)
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: The occurrence of tomato diseases has substantially reduced agricultural output and
financial losses. The timely detection of diseases is crucial to effectively manage and mitigate the
impact of episodes. Early illness detection can improve output, reduce chemical use, and boost
a nation’s economy. A complete system for plant disease detection using EfficientNetV2B2 and
deep learning (DL) is presented in this paper. This research aims to develop a precise and effective
automated system for identifying several illnesses that impact tomato plants. This will be achieved
by analyzing tomato leaf photos. A dataset of high-resolution photographs of healthy and diseased
Citation: Debnath, A.; Hasan, M.M.; tomato leaves was created to achieve this goal. The EfficientNetV2B2 model is the foundation of the
Raihan, M.; Samrat, N.; Alsulami, deep learning system and excels at picture categorization. Transfer learning (TF) trains the model on
M.M.; Masud, M.; Bairagi, A.K. A a tomato leaf disease dataset using EfficientNetV2B2’s pre-existing weights and a 256-layer dense
Smartphone-Based Detection System layer. Tomato leaf diseases can be identified using the EfficientNetV2B2 model and a dense layer
for Tomato Leaf Disease Using
of 256 nodes. An ideal loss function and algorithm train and tune the model. Next, the concept is
EfficientNetV2B2 and Its
deployed in smartphones and online apps. The user can accurately diagnose tomato leaf diseases
Explainability with Artificial
with this application. Utilizing an automated system facilitates the rapid identification of diseases,
Intelligence (AI). Sensors 2023, 23,
assisting in making informed decisions on disease management and promoting sustainable tomato
8685. https://doi.org/10.3390/
s23218685
cultivation practices. The 5-fold cross-validation method achieved 99.02% average weighted training
accuracy, 99.22% average weighted validation accuracy, and 98.96% average weighted test accuracy.
Academic Editor: Anastasios
The split method achieved 99.93% training accuracy and 100% validation accuracy. Using the DL
Doulamis
approach, tomato leaf disease identification achieves nearly 100% accuracy on a test dataset.
Received: 28 September 2023
Revised: 19 October 2023 Keywords: tomato leaf; deep learning; transfer learning; EfficientNetV2B2; explainable AI; LIME;
Accepted: 20 October 2023 Grad-CAM; ablation study; smartphone; web application
Published: 24 October 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Crops, the foundation of human nourishment, are essential to feeding the world’s
This article is an open access article population [1]. There are many different types of crops, but none stand out as much
distributed under the terms and as tomatoes [2]. Tomatoes account for around 15% of all vegetables consumed globally,
conditions of the Creative Commons with an astounding 20 kg yearly per capita consumption rate [3]. The output of fresh
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tomatoes exceeds 170 million tons annually, making it the most plentiful vegetable crop
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ worldwide [4]. China, Egypt, Turkey, the United States, and India are the top tomato
4.0/). producers, demonstrating its widespread use and economic importance [5].

Sensors 2023, 23, 8685. https://doi.org/10.3390/s23218685 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 2 of 21

Tomato cultivation is widely practiced, although it is not without its difficulties [6].
The sneaky existence of tomato leaf diseases is the biggest threat to the worldwide tomato
business [7]. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reports that
these diseases substantially negatively impact tomato production globally, with an annual
loss rate of up to 10% [8]. The tendency of these diseases to start in the leaves before
ferociously spreading across the entire plant makes them even more worrisome [9].
Historically, diagnosing and treating these disorders has been a time-consuming and
expensive process that frequently relied on manual examinations by qualified profession-
als [10]. But with the advent of the digital era, agriculture has undergone a fundamental
change [11]. Automated AI image-based solutions have become an essential weapon in the
battle against illnesses affecting tomato leaves [12]. The advent of cutting-edge software
and technologies has ushered in an era when pictures are acknowledged and used as
a reliable method of disease diagnosis [13]. This innovation uses image processing, an
intelligent method that boosts recognition precision, lowers expenses, and improves picture
recognition efficiency [14].
Computer vision technology is one of the most effective and ecologically responsible
ways to identify plant diseases [15]. This technique provides a low-cost, non-destructive
method of spotting agricultural problems with no negative effects on the environment [16].
Particularly obvious symptoms of underlying plant diseases are the scars and abnormalities
that appear on leaves [17]. Healthy leaves have a consistent color and texture, but sick
leaves show differences and frequently have recognizable patterns of illness spots [18]. To
improve illness diagnosis, researchers have explored a variety of imaging methods and
tailored illumination conditions in labs [19].
Although they can be useful in some cases, conventional diagnostic techniques are
burdened by their high cost and proneness to human mistakes [20]. On the other hand,
the quick development of computer technology has given rise to creative solutions. In
the identification of agricultural diseases, computer vision, machine learning (ML), and
DL have found their place. These tools make it possible to separate RGB photos of crop
diseases depending on their color, texture, or form characteristics [21]. Even in complicated
natural contexts where several illnesses may display identical symptoms, our advanced
technique significantly improves the accuracy of disease diagnosis [22]. The study has
significant ramifications for sustainable agriculture, global food security, and technology’s
crucial place in contemporary farming methods.
ML and DL models have an influence beyond tomatoes [23]. These tremendous instru-
ments have the potential to revolutionize agriculture in general [24]. We can equip farmers
with the tools they need to protect their crops, improve food security, and strengthen
the world’s agricultural economy by modifying and training these models to detect par-
ticular crops’ distinctive traits and illnesses [25]. This revolutionary use of technology
promises improved precision and a more sustainable and successful future for agriculture
globally [26]. As we progress further into the digital era, the interdependence of agricul-
ture and technology will become increasingly crucial to ensure the success of our crops
and plenty of our meals [27]. Nowadays, artificial intelligence (AI)-based expert systems
(smartphone applications, web applications) are more useful for this detection. So, if it is
possible to implement the detection system in a smartphone application, this would be
more powerful and easy for everyone to use. So we thought about the concept and worked
on it to implement the detection process on smartphones and web applications. Anyone
can take pictures of tomato leaves, and a smartphone application or web application can be
used to obtain promising results. The major contributions of this work are as follows:
• We optimize a very effective DL model, EfficientNetV2B2, for tomato leaf disease detection.
• The proposed model is evaluated using different matrices such as loss curve, ROC
curve, confusion matrix, precision, recall, F1-score, and accuracy with datasets [28,29].
The model is also justified by comparing it with state-of-the-art deep learning models
and customized models [30–36].
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 3 of 21

• A smart application system has been built to detect and classify tomato leaf diseases,
adapting to both smartphone and web-based interfaces. The application provides the
results in both English and Bangla.
• The explainable AI frameworks such as LIME and Grad-CAM are also used to analyze
the model.
The subsequent sections of this work are structured in the following manner. Section 2
covers the Literature Review, whereas Section 3 presents the Methodology of this investi-
gation. Section 4 provides a comprehensive account of the Experimental Outcomes and
Discussions, while Section 5 is a summary of our findings and conclusions.

2. Literature Review
Agarwal et al. [30] implemented a convolutional neural network (CNN) using the
dataset from [29]. This dataset is vast and includes many types of crops. However,
in this particular experiment, tomato leaves were only utilized. A cohort consisting of
10 individuals was employed, and a dataset including 10,000 photographs was utilized
for training purposes. In order to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results, a
validation approach was employed, wherein 700 instances were allocated for each class,
while 50 instances were assigned for each kind for testing purposes. The dimensions of the
image were 256 × 256. The model was executed for a total of 1000 epochs. The researchers
attained a mean test accuracy of 91.20%. The present study involved the development
of a convolutional neural network (CNN) model for the purpose of detecting diseases in
tomato crops. The architecture has three convolution and maximum pooling layers, each
characterized by a distinct number of filters. One notable feature of the proposed model is
its minimal storage requirement of approximately 1.5 MB, in contrast to the significantly
larger storage demand of around 100 MB for pre-trained models. Subsequent investigations
will endeavor to refine the model by using a more extensive dataset comprising a greater
quantity of photographs encompassing diverse cropping techniques.
Similarly, Ahmad et al. [37] tried laboratory-based tomato leaves collected from a
repository. They used only four classes of tomato leaves, splitting the dataset into training
(70%), validation (20%), and testing (10%). They also used different deep learning models.
Among them, using feature extraction, Inception V3 achieved the best accuracy of 93.40%,
and using parameter tuning, Inception V3 achieved the best accuracy of 99.60%. They
found that feature extraction produces less accurate outcomes than parameter adjustment.
The future logical progression of their work will be to improve these models’ performance
on actual field data.
Zhao et al. [31] used the plant village dataset [29] and selected only tomato leaves of
10 classes. Image size used 224 × 224. The SE-ResNet50 model achieved the best average
of 96.81 accuracy in the experiment. A multi-scale feature-extraction model was developed
for the purpose of identifying tomato leaf diseases. Subsequent research endeavors will
encompass the timely automated detection of tomato and other agricultural ailments
through the utilization of these trained models. The researchers will also employ the
proposed approach to automate the identification of tomato leaf diseases in an authentic
agricultural environment, employing a greenhouse inspection robot that was created
independently by the team.
Zhou et al. [38] used tomato leaf disease datasets comprising 13,185 images with nine
classes. The image size used was 196 × 196 pixels. The dataset was split into training (60%),
validation (20%), and testing (20%). Deep CNN, ResNet50, DenseNet121, and RRDN were
used and achieved the best accuracy on the RRDN model at 95%. In this study, residual
dense networks were recommended for tomato leaf disease detection. They changed the
model architecture to create a classification model with higher accuracy than cutting-edge
methods. They hope to use these findings to improve agricultural intelligence.
Trivedi et al. [39] used tomato leaf disease datasets, where nine types were classified
as infected and one class was resistant. Images were normalized by setting a resolution of
256 × 256 pixels. Then, the images were changed to grey. A convolutional neural network
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 4 of 21

was tried with different epochs and different learning rates. Finally, they achieved the best
accuracy at 98.58%, and the detection rate of that model was 98.49%. The study examined a
deep neural network model that accurately detected and classified tomato leaf diseases.
The crop leaf lacked nutrients, thus the model was expanded to incorporate other abiotic
illnesses. The researchers wanted to maximize data collection and learn about various plant
diseases. New technologies will improve precision in the future. Wu et al. [40] collected a
dataset from Plant Village [29] and used only tomato leaves for this experiment. They tried
five different classes. For GoogLeNet, AlexNet, and ResNet, they used an image size of
224 × 224 pixels, and for VGG, they used an image size of 299 × 299 pixels of RGB color
space. A total of 1500 images were used for this experiment. This experiment used AlexNet,
GoogLeNet, ResNet, and VGG16, and among them, GoogLeNet achieved the best accuracy
of 94.33%. They also tried DCGAN, BEGAN, and DCGAN + BEGAN, and among them,
DCGAN achieved the best 94.33% accuracy, but the accuracy on the test was 67%. This
experiment tried to find different accuracies using different learning rates. In this study,
the authors showed that DCGAN can produce data that closely resemble genuine photos,
hence increasing the size of the dataset for training big neural networks, enhancing the
generalizability of recognition models, and increasing the variety of data. To recognize
tomato leaf disease, they intend to develop a better data-augmentation approach in the
future. This will increase the recognition’s robustness and accuracy.
Chen et al. [19] collected a dataset of tomato leaves from the Hunan Vegetable Institute.
Images were taken in natural light, and the image size was 4460 × 3740. They collected
a total of 8616 images of five kinds of diseases. They tried it with the B-ARNet model
architecture, and using a 224 × 224 image size, the model achieved an accuracy of 88.43%.
Then, they compared it with ARNet, ResNet50, and AlexNet. Among all of them, their B-
ARNet achieved the best accuracy at 88.43%. This article suggests a strategy for identifying
tomato leaf disease based on the ABCK-BWTR and B-ARNet models. There are few
studies on the identification of multiple diseases on the same blade, despite the B-ARNet
recognition model’s suggestion that they can improve the recognition effect of tomato
diseases, particularly similar diseases under complicated backgrounds. To increase the
model’s capacity for generalization, the image data of tomato leaf disease should be
progressively expanded in the future.
All of these studies show what happens to infected tomato leaves when different
models are used. It accurately predicted tomato disease leaves in certain studies, even
when learning rates and epochs were altered. A summary of the literature review is
implemented in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of the literature review.

Authors Datasets Model Accuracy

Convolution
Agarwal et al. [30] Plant Village [29] 91.20%
Neural Network
Ahmad et al. [37] Laboratory-Based InceptionV3 99.60%
Zhao et al. [31] Plant Village [29] SE-ResNet50 96.81%
Zhou et al. [38] Tomato leaf disease RRDN 95%
Convolution
Trivedi et al. [39] Tomato leaf disease 98.58%
Neural Network
Wu et al. [40] Plant Village [29] GoogLeNet 94.33%
Chen et al. [19] Hunan Vegetable Institute B-ARNet 88.43%

3. Methodology
Figure 1 shows that we first collected the dataset and split it into training, testing,
and validation sets. Then, we deployed the model EfficientNetV2B2 with an additional
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 5 of 21

dense layer 256 and finally built an expert system using the model. We created both a
web application and a smartphone application that will take tomato leaves as input and
produce results. In the background, we collect these images and train our model with those
images because they are now are training dataset. This process will continue as a loop to
keep our detection system updated.

Figure 1. The workflow for tomato leaf disease detection with the suggested user application.

3.1. Dataset
Every stage in the experiment requires datasets. Ten thousand images of tomato leaves
were obtained from Kaggle [28] for the following dataset. We also stored the dataset on
https://zenodo.org/record/8311631 (accessed on 2 September 2023) for further use. There is
also the smartphone application file (.apk), which we created in the smartphone application
folder. The diseases and their corresponding number of samples are shown in Table 2. This
is a ten-class dataset with one healthy leaf class. Each class contains 1000 samples, and
hence, this is a balanced dataset. Figure 2 displays a few samples from this dataset that
were picked randomly. The images were processed with a 256 × 256 resolution.

3.2. Data Split

The repository for “Tomato leaf diseases detection” [28] is where samples of tomato leaf
disease were found. An RGB color space and the JPG file format were used to store images,
which have 256 × 256 resolution. We divided the dataset into three sets: 8000 images for
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 6 of 21

training (800 images in every class), 1000 images for the validation set (100 images from
each class), and 1000 images for the test set (100 images from every class).

3.3. InceptionV3 Architecture

A crucial convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture for image identification
is InceptionV3 [41], which was created by Google Research in 2015. It can collect features
at various scales and achieve exceptional accuracy because of the creative “Inception
modules” that include parallel convolutional filters of various sizes. Deep learning in
computer vision has significantly advanced due to the widespread adoption of InceptionV3
in image-categorization applications.

Table 2. Classes with the number of samples.

Class Names Training Images Validation Images Test Images Total Images
Mosaic Virus 800 100 100 1000
Target Spot 800 100 100 1000
Bacterial Spot 800 100 100 1000
Yellow Leaf Curl Virus 800 100 100 1000
Late Blight 800 100 100 1000
Leaf Mold 800 100 100 1000
Early Blight 800 100 100 1000
Spider Mites Two-Spotted Spider Mite 800 100 100 1000
Septoria Leaf Spot 800 100 100 1000
Healthy 800 100 100 1000

Figure 2. Randomly selected disease-affected tomato leaves from the dataset.

Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 7 of 21

3.4. Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) Architecture

An essential deep learning architecture designed specifically for processing visual
input is the convolutional neural network (CNN) [42]. They effectively perform tasks
including picture classification, object identification, and facial recognition because of the
novel usage of convolutional layers, which enables autonomous feature extraction. With its
capacity to learn hierarchical features directly from raw pixel data, CNN has transformed
the field of computer vision and is now the driving force behind applications in autonomous
cars, medical imaging, and more.

3.5. EfficientNet Architecture

A deep convolutional neural network architecture family known as EfficientNet [43]
has drawn attention to striking an outstanding balance between model accuracy and
efficiency. EfficientNet, which was founded by Google Research in 2019, addresses the
issue of scaling neural networks to improve performance while preserving the computing
economy. The models in the EfficientNet series, which range from EfficientNet-B0 to -B7,
each have a unique set of parameters and level of computational complexity. These models
employ a compound scaling technique that balances the network’s depth, breadth, and
resolution to achieve optimal performance in a range of computer vision applications.
EfficientNet models have repeatedly performed the best in picture classification problems,
showcasing their adaptability and effectiveness in a variety of real-world applications,
including object identification, image recognition, and more.

3.6. Architectures of EfficientNetV2

The Google Research-developed EfficientNet family of neural network topologies
has evolved into EfficientNetV2 [23]. Compared to the original EfficientNet models, it
represents a refinement and enhancement. V2-Small, V2-Medium, V2-Large, and V2-
Extra Large are the sizes of the models in the EfficientNetV2 series. It also explains the
versions of EfficientV2B0 to EfficientNetV2B3. Figure 3 shows the model architecture of
the EfficientNetV2 model. By combining innovative architectural improvements, such as
a new layer normalizing method termed “Ghost Batch Normalization” and an improved
training pipeline, EfficientNetV2 improves on the success of its predecessor. With these
modifications, training stability and performance are improved for a variety of tasks,
including object identification, image classification, and more. The appealing combination
of economy and accuracy that EfficientNetV2 models provide makes them appropriate for
both resource-constrained and high-performance computing contexts.

Figure 3. Model architecture for EfficientNetV2.

Some of the blocks of the EfficientNet V2 architecture include

• MBConv Block: Mobile Inverted Bottleneck Convolution, the main component of
EfficientNet, is represented by this. Squeeze-and-excitation procedures and depthwise
separable convolution are also included.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 8 of 21

• Stem Block: This is the first node in the network, and it is in charge of analyzing the
input picture and extracting key information.
• Block1, Block2, Block3, . . . : These are the next blocks in the network, usually sorted
in ascending order, with Block1 being nearer the input and higher-numbered blocks
being further in the network.
• Head Block: The output layer and final predictions are handled by this network’s last
building piece.

3.7. Deployed Model

The pre-trained EfficientNetV2B2 [23] model, which was trained using the ImageNet
dataset and 1000 category objects shown in Figure 3, was the method used for this exper-
iment. As shown in Figure 4, to have the outputs match the classes in the dataset, we
next reshaped the EfficientNetV2B2 model’s last layer with fully connected layers, one
additional dense layer of 256, and 10 fully connected SoftMax layers. Table 3 shows the
hyperparameters used in the EfficientNetV2B2 model.

Figure 4. Model Architecture for EfficientNetV2B2 with Additional Dense Layer 256.

• As the first step, the pre-trained model is shown.

• We used a fine-tuning approach and trained the model to classify the various tomato
leaf diseases, including healthy leaves, by reshaping the final layer of the Efficient-
NetV2B2 model with fully connected layers and an additional dense layer of 256, then
adding 10 fully connected SoftMax layers.

3.8. User Application Design

To create a user-friendly application, the top-performing EfficientNetV2B2 model from
an experimental situation was deployed into a .H5 file. Here, the .H5 file extension, which
stands for Hierarchical Data Format version 5, and the .H5 file are then integrated with the
web application using the Python web framework Streamlit. Additionally, a user-friendly
web application and Android app were created so that end users could quickly input the
image to test the diseases of tomato leaves. The application architecture is also employed
in both Bangla and English, making it easier for Bangladeshi farmers who require the
program. It shows the class name of the diseases and suggests some solutions for them in
both Bangla and English. After every result and explanation, we added some buttons to
read the texts for the users in English and Bangla. This will be very helpful for many users
who need to improve in reading English or Bangla but are good at listening. The solutions
were collected from authentic sources, and reference links were added to both the web and
the smartphone applications.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 9 of 21

Table 3. Hyperparameters of EfficientNetV2B2.

Hyperparameters Short Description

Technique used in deep learning to stabilize and accelerate training by normalizing the inputs of each layer
Batch Normalization
in a mini-batch.
Learning Rate Controls how quickly a machine learning model adapts its parameters during training.
Kernel Regularizer Discourages excessive weight values in neural networks to prevent overfitting.
Activity Regularizer Penalizes neural activation values to prevent overfitting in deep learning models.
Bias Regularizer Discourages large bias values in neural networks to improve generalization and prevent overfitting.
Activation Introduces non-linearity to model data by transforming neuron outputs.
Adamax An optimization algorithm for deep learning, a variant of Adam.

4. Experimental Outcomes and Discussions

Here, in this section, all the results of this experiment are shown, including the loss
curve, accuracy curve, Confusion Matrix, and ROC curve, and the results are also compared
with those of different approaches.

4.1. Cross-Validation Outcome of the EfficientNetV2B2 Model

A common method in ML for evaluating models is five-fold cross-validation. By offer-
ing several performance indicators across various data subsets, five-fold cross-validation
ensures more accurate model evaluation while assessing a model’s generalization capability.
The five-fold cross-validation method was used for this experiment. Table 4 represents
the results of training accuracy, validation accuracy, and testing accuracy. The table also
shows the training time that was consumed for each fold. This method achieved 99.02%
average weighted training accuracy, 99.22% average weighted validation accuracy, and
98.96% average weighted test accuracy.

Table 4. Outcome of five-fold cross-validation technique.

Fold Numbers Training Accuracy Validation Accuracy Test Accuracy Required Time (Minutes)
1 99.03% 99.20% 99.20% 36.0
2 99.01% 99.40% 98.90% 40.18
3 99.14% 99.40% 99.50% 42.56
4 98.91% 99.40% 98.10 37.10
5 99.02% 98.70% 99.10% 42.53
Average Weighted Accuracy 99.02% 99.22% 98.96% 39.67

Figure 5a shows the loss curve of the best fold, which is fold 3. Figure 5b shows the
accuracy curve for training and validation of the best fold. Among the five folds, this fold
achieved the best accuracy. Fold 3 achieved a training accuracy of 99.14%, a validation
accuracy of 99.40%, and a test accuracy of 99.50%.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 10 of 21

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Graph of fold 3: (a) loss curve, (b) accuracy curve.

Figure 6 shows the Confusion matrix of the best fold.

Figure 6. Confusion matrix of fold 3 from the five-fold cross-validation method.

4.2. Split Method Outcome of the EfficientNetV2B2 Model

Here, all the split-method-related outcomes of EfficientNetV2B2 are fully explained.

4.2.1. Statistical Analysis

Figure 7a shows the loss curve. Loss has decreased among the epochs, and the best
epoch is 30 because, at epoch 30, we obtained the minimum loss, where the validation loss
was 0.0942. The accuracy graph for training and validation is also shown in Figure 7b. It
shows the accuracy-comparison diagram among different epochs. It shows that, as we
increase the number of epochs, the accuracy percentage is also increased. At epoch 1, we
obtained an accuracy of training of 80.90%, and the accuracy of validation was 89.50%.
Then, at epoch 5, our training accuracy increased to 98.00%, and our validation accuracy
jumped to 97.8%. After completing ten epochs, at epoch 11, we obtained an accuracy of
training of 99.10% and an accuracy of validation of 99.40%. Then at epoch 26, we obtained
an accuracy of training of 99.93% and an accuracy of validation of 99.80%. Then at epoch
27, the accuracy of training was 99.90%, and the accuracy of validation was 100%. And
finally, at epoch 30, the accuracy of training was 99.91%, and the accuracy of validation
was 99.70%. Here we obtained the greatest accuracy of training of 99.93% and accuracy of
validation of 100%.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 11 of 21

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Graph of (a) loss curve, (b) accuracy graph.

4.2.2. Confusion Matrix

By using this confusion matrix in Figure 8, we achieved a test accuracy of 100% for
test images. As the experiment used 100 images for each class, Figure 8 explains that all the
test images were predicted correctly.

Figure 8. Confusion matrix for tomato leaf images.

4.2.3. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) Curve

A ROC curve was used to further evaluate the top-performing model, Efficient-
NetV2B2, as shown in Figure 9. One hundred percent is the outcome of combining the
macro and micro averages.
Table 5 shows the classification report. It indicates the F1 score, recall, and accuracy.
Here, the accuracy, recall, and F1 scores for all tomato image classes are 100. And also, the
macro average and weighted average were 100%.

4.2.4. Comparison with State-of-the-Art Models

In Figure 10, we compare our proposed method with different models from which we
experimented with our dataset [28] to know which method performs well enough. The last
column represents our final approach (EfficientNetV2B2), which achieved better accuracy of
training and validation than the other approaches. The proposed model EfficientNetV2B2
achieved 8.73% better training and 13.45% better validation accuracy than InceptionV3.
Similarly, it achieved 9.72% better training and 10.73% better validation accuracy than
CNN, 0.73% better training and 3.10% better validation accuracy than EfficientNetB3, and
0.10% better training and 0.20% better validation accuracy than the EfficientNetB2 model.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 12 of 21

Figure 9. ROC curve for tomato leaf images.

Table 5. Performance matrix.

Name Precision (%) Recall (%) F1-Score (%) Accuracy (%)

Bacterial spot 100 100 100 100
Early blight 100 100 100 100
Late blight 100 100 100 100
Leaf Mold 100 100 100 100
Septoria Leaf Spot 100 100 100 100
Spider Mites Two-Spotted
100 100 100 100
Spider Mite
Target spot 100 100 100 100
Yellow Leaf Curl Virus 100 100 100 100
Mosaic virus 100 100 100 100
Healthy 100 100 100 100
Macro average 100 100 100 100
Weighted average 100 100 100 100

Figure 10. The accuracy comparison chart on the same dataset.

Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 13 of 21

4.2.5. Comparison with Customized Models on the Plant Village Dataset

We also tried our model with the most popular Plant Village dataset [29]. So many
authors have used the dataset [29] and used only tomato leaves. So, to compare with other
models, we also tried only tomato leaves from the dataset [29]. The class distribution of this
dataset is shown in Table 6. The dataset is not balanced, as, in Table 6, we split the dataset
[29] into (i) training (80%), (ii) validation (10%), and (iii) testing (10%). The image size used
is 256 × 256. Then, we used our model EfficientNetV2B2 with an additional dense layer
256 and achieved an accuracy of training 99.92% and an accuracy of validation of 99.94%,
as shown in Figure 11. Using the confusion matrix in Figure 12, we achieved a test accuracy
of 99.80% for test images.

Table 6. Distribution of classes of the plant village dataset.

Class Names Training Images Validation Images Test Images Total Images
Mosaic Virus 303 37 33 373
Target Spot 1120 157 127 1404
Bacterial Spot 1720 215 192 2127
Yellow Leaf Curl Virus 4758 310 289 5357
Late Blight 1580 157 172 1909
Leaf Mold 761 105 86 952
Early Blight 800 110 90 1000
Spider Mites Two-Spotted Spider Mite 1375 150 151 1676
Septoria Leaf Spot 1433 178 160 1771
Healthy 1287 160 144 1591

Now, we try to compare our model’s performance with other authors’ model per-
formance on the dataset [29]. Table 7 compares our approach to the dataset [29], and we
obtained the best accuracy. Table 7 shows that the proposed model achieved 2.31% better
accuracy than AlexNet [33]. Similarly, it achieved 8.6% better accuracy than CNN [30],
2.99% better accuracy than SE-ResNet50 [31], 0.10% better accuracy than ResNet34 [32],
1.90% better accuracy than SECNN [34], 7.20% better accuracy than CNN [35], and 4.09%
better accuracy than VGG16 [36].

(a) (b)

Figure 11. Graph of (a) loss curve of plant village dataset and (b) accuracy graph of the plant
village dataset.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 14 of 21

Figure 12. Confusion matrix of the plant village dataset.

4.3. Ablation Study

The influence of various characteristics or components on a model’s performance is
examined using the research approach known as an ablation study, which is frequently
employed in machine learning and scientific investigations. It entails methodically deleting
or disabling particular components, such as model parameters, input characteristics, or
layers, in order to gauge how each affects the system as a whole. Researchers can improve
models and choose features by understanding whether parts are necessary, superfluous, or
harmful through ablation experiments.
After achieving a good result in the EfficientNetV2B2 model, with an additional dense
layer of 256 using only 30 epochs, we tried the same model with no extra layer. The accuracy
for training was 99.71%, while for validation, it was 99.40%. And on test data, we achieved
a test accuracy of 99.60%.
In Figure 13, we used no additional layer, ran the model for 19 epochs, and stopped
early at epoch 20. Figure 14a shows the loss curve, and Figure 14b shows the accuracy
graph. Using the confusion matrix in Figure 15, we achieved a test accuracy of 99.60% for
test images.

Table 7. Comparing our method to other methods on the plant village dataset.

Authors Datasets Model Accuracy Rate Year

Rangarajan et al. [33] Plant Village Dataset [29] AlexNet 97.49% 2018
Agarwal et al. [30] Plant Village Dataset [29] Convolution Neural Network 91.20% 2020
Zhao et al. [31] Plant Village Dataset [29] SE-ResNet50 96.81% 2021
Tan et al. [32] Plant Village Dataset [29] ResNet34 99.70% 2021
Naik et al. [34] Plant Village Dataset [29] SECNN 97.90% 2022
Kurmi et al. [35] Plant Village Dataset [29] CNN 92.60% 2022
Paymode et al. [36] Plant Village Dataset [29] VGG16 95.71% 2022
Proposed approach Plant Village Dataset [29] EfficientNetV2B2 99.80% -

4.4. Development of Smartphone and Web Applications

Figures 16 and 17 represent the deployment result of the web application and Android
application. Our web application is live on https://tomato-leaf-diseases-detection-anjan
.streamlit.app/ (accessed on 2 September 2023), and our smartphone application (.apk)
file is uploaded in the smartphone application folder https://zenodo.org/record/8311631
(accessed on 2 September 2023).
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 15 of 21

Figure 13. Accuracy comparison among the epochs with no additional layer.

(a) (b)

Figure 14. Graph of (a) loss curve with no additional layer, (b) accuracy graph with no addi-
tional layer.

Figure 15. Confusion matrix with no additional layer.

(a) (b)

Figure 16. Screenshot of the web application (a) uploading the image, (b) showing the results
and references.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 16 of 21

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 17. Screenshot of the smartphone application (a) uploading the image, (b) showing the results
(c) showing rest of the results and references.

User Feedback on Applications

To analyze the performance of the applications, we performed this survey among
some local farmers and agricultural officers who are experts in this area. They used this
application for the real-time detection of tomato leaf disease and then they participated
in the survey. From the survey, we obtained some average results of the survey that are
shown in Figure 18. They gave ratings between 0 to 5 for each question according to
their experience.

Figure 18. Average survey results of applications based on user feedback.

4.5. Discussion
This experiment was performed by using the EfficientNetV2B2 model. This experiment
used the five-fold cross-validation method and the split method. The cross-validation
method is very popular, and this method also performed very well on the dataset, but
when the split method (80% training, 10% validation, 10% test) was used, it achieved better
accuracy than the five-fold cross-validation method. We used more epochs for the five-fold
cross-validation method, and it achieved better accuracy. As we used the free version of
Google-colab, it has a time limitation for GPU use. The experiment with the split method
achieved 100% validation accuracy and 100% test accuracy on test sets. The overfitting
problem did not occur because the training set and test set are totally different. The training
and validation accuracy comparison for the experiment is shown in Figure 7, and the
confusion matrix is shown in Figure 8. For this experiment, we could not find any papers
on our main dataset [28], so we implemented the proposed model on the very popular
Plant Village dataset [29] and used only tomato leaves. We also achieved better accuracy,
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 17 of 21

and a comparison is shown in Table 7. Finally, using the model, we developed smartphone
and web applications to make the prediction easy.

4.6. Explainablity of the Proposed Model

Transparency and confidence in AI depend on its explanation. Making complicated
judgments clear requires the use of deep learning models. AI and model visualization in
agriculture can improve crop management, disease detection, and resource allocation. This
will result in more productive and sustainable agricultural methods, which will ultimately
lead to an increase in food output and global food security.

4.6.1. LIME Analysis

The commonly utilized method of LIME [44] (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic
Explanations) is used for understanding the predictions of complex machine learning
models. LIME provides localized explanations when the model’s decision-making method
is confusing or difficult to understand by essentially replicating the way the model acts
around certain data examples. It accomplishes this through a novel method in which it
imitates the complicated model’s behavior in close proximity to particular data instances.
LIME derives important insights into why the model produced a certain prediction by
perturbing and probing the input data surrounding a given sample. With the help of
this comprehension tool, machine learning models may become more transparent and
trustworthy, which makes it simpler for stakeholders and practitioners to comprehend
and accept the model’s judgments. Figure 19 shows the output of the LIME experiment,
which shows which features in an image have the most powerful influence on the model’s
prediction. We can also perform error analysis and debugging using the output of LIME.
Here, we can see the specific features that are influencing the model to make the correct
decision about the different classes. Every class has different features to identify. It shows
how our model makes decisions.

Figure 19. LIME experiment on each class of tomato leaves to understand the main features with the
most influence on the model’s prediction.

4.6.2. Grad-CAM Analysis

To give visual explanations, Grad-CAM (Gradient-weighted Class Activation Map-
ping) highlights the portions of the given image that are essential for the model’s decision-
making. The last convolutional layer’s feature maps are used by the Grad-CAM method to
take advantage of gradients in the target class score. The Grad-CAM is a useful technique
for computer vision and model interpretability. Its primary use is to give users visual cues
into how deep neural networks make decisions, particularly when carrying out picture
classification tasks. This is accomplished by locating and emphasizing the areas of an input
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 18 of 21

picture that are crucial to the model’s final categorization determination. The technique
makes use of the gradients between the target class score and the feature maps produced
by the last convolutional layer of the model. These gradients effectively serve as a spotlight,
illuminating the areas of the picture that the model considers to be most important in mak-
ing its categorization determination; this analysis’s outcome behind a certain prediction,
improving the model’s interpretability, and fostering confidence in complicated neural
networks are all aided by this depiction. We used the top activation layer as our target layer
for the Grad-Cam visualization; this analysis’s outcome is shown in Figure 20. This helps
us to verify and understand the assumptions that drive the predictions of our model. It can
make the model’s decision-making process clear and understandable to both technical and
non-technical uses by providing graphic explanations.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

(g) (h)

(i) (j)

Figure 20. Grad-Cam visual explanations of (a) bacterial spot, (b) early blight, (c) late blight, (d) leaf
mold, (e) septoria leaf spots, (f) spider mites and two-spotted spider mites, (g) target spot, (h) yellow
leaf curl virus, (i) mosaic virus, (j) tomato healthy.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 19 of 21

5. Conclusions
This experiment has presented a technique for classifying and identifying tomato leaf
disease using the model EfficientNetV2B2. It contrasts the suggested method with a number
of artisanal shallow structure approaches based on deep learning and machine learning.
Using the dataset [28], the suggested approach produces outcomes that are encouraging in
terms of accuracy. A weighted training accuracy of 99.02 percent, a weighted validation
accuracy of 99.22 percent, and a weighted test accuracy of 98.96 percent were all attained
using the five-fold cross-validation method. With a split-method accuracy of training of
99.93%, an accuracy of validation of 100%, and test accuracy of 100%, we demonstrated
encouraging results in the experimental section. We developed a smartphone application
and web application that takes an image of a tomato leaf as input and provides the correct
result and solution for that disease. It supports both Bangla and English languages, a
solution that will benefit farmers. There are speaking buttons that read the solutions and
results for the users. This experiment has some limitations. The experiment was performed
on only nine classes of diseases, and one class comprised healthy tomato leaves. The
number of diseases could increase in the future. Also, this experiment only used two
languages. It could be increased further. As we explained earlier, the user’s test image was
stored on a server, and used the images as a training dataset, but it was a manual process for
us. Our future goal is to decrease these limitations and also use this approach on other crops
and analyze their performance. The study demonstrates how deep learning algorithms may
promote the sustainable growth of tomato crops by revolutionizing disease-management
methods. Our web and smartphone tools may be used to make this identification process
simpler, more accurate, and more optimistic. This technology can help farmers make
educated decisions and allocate resources efficiently, and tomato leaf disorders impact crop
quality and yield with more research and integration into agricultural systems.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization: M.M.H. and A.D.; Data management: A.D. and N.S.;
Formal evaluation: A.D., M.M.H., M.R. and N.S.; Investigation: A.D. and N.S.; Methodology: A.D.
and N.S.; Project management, A.D.; Resources: A.D., M.R. and M.M.H.; Software and Coding: A.D.
and M.R.; Supervision: M.M.H., M.R. and A.K.B.; Validation, M.R. and A.K.B.; Visualization: A.D.,
M.R., M.M.H. and A.K.B.; Writing original draft: A.D. and N.S.; Writing review and final editing:
M.R., M.M.H., M.M.A., M.M. and A.K.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding: The researchers would like to acknowledge the deanship of Scientific Research, Taif
University, for funding this project.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The main dataset used for this experiment was collected from Kaggle
which is available at https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/kaustubhb999/tomatoleaf (accessed on 30
June 2023). This research also used the plant village dataset for comparison and collected only tomato
leaves. The dataset was collected from https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/tywbtsjrjv/1 (accessed
on 30 June 2023). The main dataset and smartphone application (.apk file) of this study are available
at https://zenodo.org/record/8311631 (accessed on 2 September 2023).
Acknowledgments: The researchers would like to acknowledge the Deanship of Scientific Research,
Taif University, for funding this project.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 20 of 21

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

CNN Convolutional Neural Network

Grad-CAM Gradient-weighted Class Activation Mapping
LIME Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations
.H5 Hierarchical Data Format 5
DL Deep Learning
ML Machine Learning
TF Transfer Learning
RGB Red, green and blue

References
1. Thangaraj, R.; Anandamurugan, S.; Pandiyan, P.; Kaliappan, V.K. Artificial intelligence in tomato leaf disease detection: A com-
prehensive review and discussion. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2022, 129, 469–488. [CrossRef]
2. Vasavi, P.; Punitha, A.; Rao, T.V.N. Crop leaf disease detection and classification using machine learning and deep learning
algorithms by visual symptoms: A review. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2022, 12, 2079. [CrossRef]
3. Li, L.; Zhang, S.; Wang, B. Plant disease detection and classification by deep learning—A review. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 56683–56698.
[CrossRef]
4. Basavaiah, J.; Arlene Anthony, A. Tomato leaf disease classification using multiple feature extraction techniques. Wirel. Pers.
Commun. 2020, 115, 633–651. [CrossRef]
5. Sarkar, C.; Gupta, D.; Gupta, U.; Hazarika, B.B. Leaf disease detection using machine learning and deep learning: Review and
challenges. Appl. Soft Comput. 2023, 145, 110534. [CrossRef]
6. Ramanjot; Mittal, U.; Wadhawan, A.; Singla, J.; Jhanjhi, N.; Ghoniem, R.M.; Ray, S.K.; Abdelmaboud, A. Plant Disease Detection
and Classification: A Systematic Literature Review. Sensors 2023, 23, 4769. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Kumar, R.; Chug, A.; Singh, A.P.; Singh, D. A Systematic analysis of machine learning and deep learning based approaches for
plant leaf disease classification: A review. J. Sens. 2022, 2022, 3287561. [CrossRef]
8. Yamamoto, K.; Togami, T.; Yamaguchi, N. Super-resolution of plant disease images for the acceleration of image-based phenotyp-
ing and vigor diagnosis in agriculture. Sensors 2017, 17, 2557. [CrossRef]
9. Brahimi, M.; Boukhalfa, K.; Moussaoui, A. Deep learning for tomato diseases: Classification and symptoms visualization. Appl.
Artif. Intell. 2017, 31, 299–315. [CrossRef]
10. Kumar, Y.; Singh, R.; Moudgil, M.R.; Kamini. A Systematic Review of Different Categories of Plant Disease Detection Using Deep
Learning-Based Approaches. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2023, 30, 4757–4779. [CrossRef]
11. Tian, X.; Meng, X.; Wu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Pan, J. Identification of tomato leaf diseases based on a deep neuro-fuzzy network. J. Inst.
Eng. (India) Ser. A 2022, 103, 695–706. [CrossRef]
12. Bhujel, A.; Kim, N.E.; Arulmozhi, E.; Basak, J.K.; Kim, H.T. A lightweight Attention-based convolutional neural networks for
tomato leaf disease classification. Agriculture 2022, 12, 228. [CrossRef]
13. Mkonyi, L.; Rubanga, D.; Richard, M.; Zekeya, N.; Sawahiko, S.; Maiseli, B.; Machuve, D. Early identification of Tuta absoluta in
tomato plants using deep learning. Sci. Afr. 2020, 10, e00590. [CrossRef]
14. John, S.; Rose, A.L. Machine learning techniques in plant disease detection and classification-a state of the art. INMATEH-Agric.
Eng. 2021, 65, 362–372.
15. Tugrul, B.; Elfatimi, E.; Eryigit, R. Convolutional neural networks in detection of plant leaf diseases: A review. Agriculture 2022,
12, 1192. [CrossRef]
16. Chopra, G.; Whig, P. Analysis of Tomato Leaf Disease Identification Techniques. J. Comput. Sci. Eng. (JCSE) 2021, 2, 98–103.
[CrossRef]
17. Hidayah, A.N.; Radzi, S.A.; Razak, N.A.; Saad, W.H.M.; Wong, Y.; Naja, A.A. Disease Detection of Solanaceous Crops Using Deep
Learning for Robot Vision. J. Robot. Control (JRC) 2022, 3, 790–799. [CrossRef]
18. Coulibaly, S.; Kamsu-Foguem, B.; Kamissoko, D.; Traore, D. Deep neural networks with transfer learning in millet crop images.
Comput. Ind. 2019, 108, 115–120. [CrossRef]
19. Chen, X.; Zhou, G.; Chen, A.; Yi, J.; Zhang, W.; Hu, Y. Identification of tomato leaf diseases based on combination of ABCK-BWTR
and B-ARNet. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 178, 105730. [CrossRef]
20. Zhang, L.; Zhou, G.; Lu, C.; Chen, A.; Wang, Y.; Li, L.; Cai, W. MMDGAN: A fusion data augmentation method for tomato-leaf
disease identification. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 123, 108969. [CrossRef]
21. Zaki, S.Z.M.; Zulkifley, M.A.; Stofa, M.M.; Kamari, N.A.M.; Mohamed, N.A. Classification of tomato leaf diseases using MobileNet
v2. IAES Int. J. Artif. Intell. 2020, 9, 290. [CrossRef]
22. Shoaib, M.; Shah, B.; Ei-Sappagh, S.; Ali, A.; Ullah, A.; Alenezi, F.; Gechev, T.; Hussain, T.; Ali, F. An advanced deep learning
models-based plant disease detection: A review of recent research. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1158933. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Tan, M.; Le, Q. Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine
Learning, Virtual Event, 18–24 July 2021; pp. 10096–10106.
Sensors 2023, 23, 8685 21 of 21

24. Parez, S.; Dilshad, N.; Alghamdi, N.S.; Alanazi, T.M.; Lee, J.W. Visual Intelligence in Precision Agriculture: Exploring Plant
Disease Detection via Efficient Vision Transformers. Sensors 2023, 23, 6949. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Ghosh, P.; Mondal, A.K.; Chatterjee, S.; Masud, M.; Meshref, H.; Bairagi, A.K. Recognition of Sunflower Diseases Using Hybrid
Deep Learning and Its Explainability with AI. Mathematics 2023, 11, 2241. [CrossRef]
26. Khan, H.; Haq, I.U.; Munsif, M.; Mustaqeem.; Khan, S.U.; Lee, M.Y. Automated wheat diseases classification framework using
advanced machine learning technique. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1226. [CrossRef]
27. Javeed, D.; Gao, T.; Saeed, M.S.; Kumar, P. An Intrusion Detection System for Edge-Envisioned Smart Agriculture in Extreme
Environment. IEEE Internet Things J. 2023. [CrossRef]
28. Kaustubh, B. Tomato Leaf Disease Detection. 2020. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/kaustubhb999/tomatol
eaf (accessed on 30 June 2023).
29. Sun, J.; Tan, W.; Mao, H.; Wu, X.; Chen, Y.; Wang, L. Recognition of multiple plant leaf diseases based on improved convolutional
neural network. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2017, 33, 209–215.
30. Agarwal, M.; Singh, A.; Arjaria, S.; Sinha, A.; Gupta, S. ToLeD: Tomato leaf disease detection using convolution neural network.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2020, 167, 293–301. [CrossRef]
31. Zhao, S.; Peng, Y.; Liu, J.; Wu, S. Tomato leaf disease diagnosis based on improved convolution neural network by attention
module. Agriculture 2021, 11, 651. [CrossRef]
32. Tan, L.; Lu, J.; Jiang, H. Tomato leaf diseases classification based on leaf images: A comparison between classical machine learning
and deep learning methods. AgriEngineering 2021, 3, 542–558. [CrossRef]
33. Rangarajan, A.K.; Purushothaman, R.; Ramesh, A. Tomato crop disease classification using pre-trained deep learning algorithm.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 133, 1040–1047. [CrossRef]
34. Naik, B.N.; Malmathanraj, R.; Palanisamy, P. Detection and classification of chilli leaf disease using a squeeze-and-excitation-based
CNN model. Ecol. Inform. 2022, 69, 101663. [CrossRef]
35. Kurmi, Y.; Saxena, P.; Kirar, B.S.; Gangwar, S.; Chaurasia, V.; Goel, A. Deep CNN model for crops’ diseases detection using leaf
images. Multidimens. Syst. Signal Process. 2022, 33, 981–1000. [CrossRef]
36. Paymode, A.S.; Malode, V.B. Transfer learning for multi-crop leaf disease image classification using convolutional neural network
VGG. Artif. Intell. Agric. 2022, 6, 23–33. [CrossRef]
37. Ahmad, I.; Hamid, M.; Yousaf, S.; Shah, S.T.; Ahmad, M.O. Optimizing pretrained convolutional neural networks for tomato leaf
disease detection. Complexity 2020, 2020, 8812019. [CrossRef]
38. Zhou, C.; Zhou, S.; Xing, J.; Song, J. Tomato leaf disease identification by restructured deep residual dense network. IEEE Access
2021, 9, 28822–28831. [CrossRef]
39. Trivedi, N.K.; Gautam, V.; Anand, A.; Aljahdali, H.M.; Villar, S.G.; Anand, D.; Goyal, N.; Kadry, S. Early detection and classification
of tomato leaf disease using high-performance deep neural network. Sensors 2021, 21, 7987. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Wu, Q.; Chen, Y.; Meng, J. DCGAN-based data augmentation for tomato leaf disease identification. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 98716–98728.
[CrossRef]
41. Lin, C.; Li, L.; Luo, W.; Wang, K.C.; Guo, J. Transfer learning based traffic sign recognition using inception-v3 model. Period.
Polytech. Transp. Eng. 2019, 47, 242–250. [CrossRef]
42. Li, Z.; Liu, F.; Yang, W.; Peng, S.; Zhou, J. A survey of convolutional neural networks: Analysis, applications, and prospects. IEEE
Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. 2021, 33, 22331591. [CrossRef]
43. Tan, M.; Le, Q. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA, USA, 9–15 June 2019; pp. 6105–6114.
44. Garreau, D.; Luxburg, U. Explaining the explainer: A first theoretical analysis of LIME. In Proceedings of the International
Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, Online, 26–28 August 2020; pp. 1287–1296.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.