SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2608.27999

PhenoIntel: A Lifecycle-Aligned Multi-Agent Web Application for Verified, Accessible Plant Phenotype Analysis

Abstract

Existing conversational plant-phenotyping platforms are difficult for plant scientists to use and lack the reliability scientific research demands: failed analyses are reported as valid measurements rather than flagged as missing, statistical tests run without checking assumptions, predictions carry no uncertainty estimate, and specialised hardware limits accessibility. We present PhenoIntel, a lifecycle-aligned multi-agent web platform that turns the full machine-learning workflow into a reliable, user-friendly phenotyping system. Nine specialised agents divide the analysis into stages, from image collection through model selection, inference, and reporting, rather than handing the whole task to one AI manager. Independent checks separate these stages, and every agent reads from and writes to one shared, fixed-structure record, so an inconsistent output from one stage is caught before it reaches the next. Uncertainty is matched to each model family, conformal prediction, detection-confidence spread, or Monte Carlo Dropout, rather than applied uniformly, and quality thresholds adapt to crop and task instead of one global cutoff. When no suitable model exists, PhenoIntel can propose, validate, and integrate a new one on its own. The model repository spans ten trained models across five crops and four imaging modalities. Classification models reach Macro F1 of 0.78-0.996; object-detection models reach 0.96 mAP@50 with a 54% reduction in counting error over an unoptimised baseline; and a temporal model reaches held-out Macro F1 of 0.7050. PhenoIntel runs in a browser on standard hardware, requiring no GPU, and a 1,200-test automated suite confirms complete pipeline execution. Every result carries calibrated uncertainty, validated statistics, and FAIR-compliant provenance, a combination existing conversational phenotyping tools do not offer.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Narendren S V, Soumyashree Kar. 2026-08-28. PhenoIntel: A Lifecycle-Aligned Multi-Agent Web Application for Verified, Accessible Plant Phenotype Analysis. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.27999

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

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related discoveries

One AI Signal, Many Human Judgments: A Bayesian Cascade Analysis of AI-based Credibility Indicators in Online Information Spread

Social media platforms increasingly use AI-based credibility indicators to help users judge misinformation. Unlike individual human-AI decision-making, these indicators are embedded in information spread: users see both an AI prediction and earlier judgments shaped by the same AI, and their own judgments may then enter the public history. Yet how to analytically characterize this process remains under-explored. We therefore introduce a social-learning lens for this setting by extending the classical Bayesian cascade model with the AI indicator as a shared public signal. The resulting Gateway condition compares the evidence from the AI prediction with users' private impressions. Through this view, we show that AI changes what public history means. Crowd agreement may reflect accumulated independent human evidence, or repeated dependence on the same AI prediction. This creates a preservation-correction trade-off: stronger reliance on AI can preserve correct predictions, but can also lock in incorrect ones by blocking corrective private impressions. We calibrate the model using human-subject data on news veracity judgments. Although the AI outperforms human users, the average user weights it below her own impression but above several peer judgments, while individual users vary from discounting the AI to relying on it enough to cascade. Simulations show that over-reliance on a weak AI is especially harmful, and that diversifying AI signals across users can better keep the crowd informative. We conclude with implications for understanding human-AI interaction in information spread and designing misinformation interventions.

cs.HC

"An Endless Stream of AI Slop": How Developers Discuss the Burden of AI-Assisted Software Development

"AI slop", that is, low-quality AI-generated content, is increasingly affecting software development, from generated code and pull requests to documentation and bug reports. However, there is limited empirical research on how developers perceive and respond to this phenomenon. We qualitatively analyzed how developers discuss AI slop in 1,154 Reddit and Hacker News posts, developing a codebook of 15 codes organized into three thematic clusters: Review Friction (how AI slop burdens reviewers, erodes trust, and prompts countermeasures), Quality Degradation (damage to codebases, knowledge resources, and developer competence), and Forces and Consequences (systemic incentives, mandated adoption, craft erosion, and workforce disruption). Our findings frame AI slop as a tragedy of the commons, where individual productivity gains externalize costs onto reviewers, maintainers, and the broader community. We report the concerns developers raise and the mitigation strategies they propose, with implications for tool developers, team leads, and educators.

cs.SE

AI Writers Have a Consistent Stylometric Footprint, but AI Editors Do Not

Text generated by large language models (LLMs) has been shown to be stylometrically distinct from human-written text \citep{andreDetectingAIAuthorship2023, shahDetectingUnmaskingAIGenerated2023, oparaStyloAIDistinguishingAIGenerated2024, soto2024fewshot, liLinguisticDifferencesAI2025, selviogluFeatureExtractionAnalysis2025}. But LLMs are increasingly used not only to generate text but also to edit human writing, and it is unclear whether the two leave the same trace. We show that AI generation leaves a consistent ``stylometric footprint'': a small subset of features, primarily entropy and lexical diversity, consistently separates AI-generated text from human writing across 8 LLMs and 5 domains, while the remaining features depend heavily on the domain and generator. AI editing, however, does not reproduce the same footprint. Relative to their human-written sources, AI-edited texts show only a small increase in lexical diversity and a decrease in entropy, rather than the joint increase that characterizes AI generation. Lexical density, which contributes little to generation, instead becomes the dominant editing-associated signal. Stylometric features therefore separate AI-edited text from AI-generated text but are substantially less effective at separating it from human-written text. Our results suggest that ``AI text'' is not a single phenomenon: generation and editing leave qualitatively different stylometric traces and should be studied separately.

cs.CL