SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2308.06668

Large Language Models and Foundation Models in Smart Agriculture: Basics, Opportunities, and Challenges

Abstract

The past decade has witnessed the rapid development and adoption of ML & DL methodologies in agricultural systems, showcased by great successes in agricultural applications. However, these conventional ML/DL models have certain limitations: they heavily rely on large, costly-to-acquire labeled datasets for training, require specialized expertise for development and maintenance, and are mostly tailored for specific tasks, thus lacking generalizability. Recently, large pre-trained models, also known as FMs, have demonstrated remarkable successes in language, vision, and decision-making tasks across various domains. These models are trained on a large amount of data from multiple domains and modalities. Once trained, they can accomplish versatile tasks with just minor fine-tuning and minimal task-specific labeled data. Despite their proven effectiveness and huge potential, there has been little exploration of applying FMs to agriculture AI. Thus, this study aims to explore the potential of FMs in the field of smart agriculture. In particular, conceptual tools and technical background are presented to help the understanding of the problem space and uncover new research directions. To this end, recent FMs in the general CS domain are reviewed, and the models are categorized into four categories: language FMs, vision FMs, multimodal FMs, and reinforcement learning FMs. Then, the steps of developing agriculture FMs (AFMs) are outlined and potential applications in smart agriculture are discussed. Moreover, challenges and risks associated with developing AFMs are discussed, including model training, validation, and deployment. In summary, the advancement of AI in agriculture is explored by introducing AFMs as a promising paradigm that can significantly mitigate the reliance on extensive labeled datasets and enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, and generalization of agricultural AI systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jiajia Li, Mingle Xu, Lirong Xiang, Dong Chen, Weichao Zhuang, Xunyuan Yin, Zhaojian Li. 2023-08-13. Large Language Models and Foundation Models in Smart Agriculture: Basics, Opportunities, and Challenges. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06668

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG