Active learning for efficient annotation in precision agriculture: a use-case on crop-weed semantic segmentation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Optimizing deep learning models requires large amounts of annotated images, a process that is both time-intensive and costly. Especially for semantic segmentation models in which every pixel must be annotated. A potential strategy to mitigate annotation effort is active learning. Active learning facilitates the identification and selection of the most informative images from a large unlabelled pool. The underlying premise is that these selected images can improve the model's performance faster than random selection to reduce annotation effort. While active learning has demonstrated promising results on benchmark datasets like Cityscapes, its performance in the agricultural domain remains largely unexplored. This study addresses this research gap by conducting a comparative study of three active learning-based acquisition functions: Bayesian Active Learning by Disagreement (BALD), stochastic-based BALD (PowerBALD), and Random. The acquisition functions were tested on two agricultural datasets: Sugarbeet and Corn-Weed, both containing three semantic classes: background, crop and weed. Our results indicated that active learning, especially PowerBALD, yields a higher performance than Random sampling on both datasets. But due to the relatively large standard deviations, the differences observed were minimal; this was partly caused by high image redundancy and imbalanced classes. Specifically, more than 89% of the pixels belonged to the background class on both datasets. The absence of significant results on both datasets indicates that further research is required for applying active learning on agricultural datasets, especially if they contain a high-class imbalance and redundant images. Recommendations and insights are provided in this paper to potentially resolve such issues.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2024.
Builds on
10 of 18 references.
References · 10
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,416
- 2017Deep Bayesian Active Learning with Image Datacited by 812
- 2020Hands-on Bayesian Neural Networks -- a Tutorial for Deep Learning Userscited by 336
- 2019Learning Loss for Active Learningcited by 335
- 2018Deep learning in agriculture: A surveycited by 160
- 2019HarDNet: A Low Memory Traffic Networkcited by 76
- 2023PhenoBench -- A Large Dataset and Benchmarks for Semantic Image Interpretation in the Agricultural Domaincited by 31
- 2023Label-Efficient Learning in Agriculture: A Comprehensive Reviewcited by 16
- 2019Active Learning with Point Supervision for Cost-Effective Panicle Detection in Cereal Cropscited by 8
- 2021Active learning with MaskAL reduces annotation effort for training Mask R-CNNcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2025WeedsGalore: A Multispectral and Multitemporal UAV-based Dataset for Crop and Weed Segmentation in Agricultural Maize Fieldscited by 4
- 2025A2LC: Active and Automated Label Correction for Semantic Segmentationcited by 2
- 2024Improved detection of discarded fish species through BoxAL active learningcited by 1
- 2026Active Learning-Driven Lightweight YOLOv9: Enhancing Efficiency in Smart Agriculturecited by 0
- 2026Active Learning-Driven Lightweight YOLOv9: Enhancing Efficiency in Smart Agriculture30 Jan 2026
- 2025A2LC: Active and Automated Label Correction for Semantic Segmentation13 Jun 2025
- 2025WeedsGalore: A Multispectral and Multitemporal UAV-based Dataset for Crop and Weed Segmentation in Agricultural Maize Fields18 Feb 2025
- 2024Improved detection of discarded fish species through BoxAL active learning7 Oct 2024