2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106346
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automated flower counting from partial detections: Multiple hypothesis tracking with a connected-flower plant model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The findings revealed a counting accuracy of 95.56% for the 90 samples. By comparison, Houtman et al [30] reported a maximum counting accuracy of 92% for 71 Phalaenopsis plants, allowing for a margin of one flower. To be more precise, the actual accuracy was 61%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The findings revealed a counting accuracy of 95.56% for the 90 samples. By comparison, Houtman et al [30] reported a maximum counting accuracy of 92% for 71 Phalaenopsis plants, allowing for a margin of one flower. To be more precise, the actual accuracy was 61%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, most of the aforementioned deep learning methods were basically limited to a fixed single viewpoint, and occlusions and overlaps were not fully considered, which is not conducive to achieving accurate flower counting. To address this problem, Houtman et al [30] proposed a nondeep learning method based on multiple hypothesis tracking (MHT) to count potted Phalaenopsis flowers. This method introduced multiple viewpoints and reached a maximum counting accuracy of 92% with a margin of one flower.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%