Safety-Aware Cascaded Inference for Crop Damage Assessment with Controlled Error Trade-offs

FarmerChat is Digital Green's farm advisory service for smallholder farmers. When something looks wrong with a crop, the farmer takes a photograph and sends it, and that photograph is the whole question: no symptom described, no crop named, often no text at all. The service has to determine whether the picture can be used, what crop it shows, and what is wrong with it, from images taken on cheap phones in a field, in poor light and with a moving camera. The system doing this today cannot be adjusted. It has no adjustable thresholds for photograph rejection, crops and problems cannot be added, and there is no confidence cut-off to set. We study about 1.16 million photographs sent to FarmerChat from Ethiopia, India, Kenya and Nigeria. The production quality gate rejected 46.8% of the images it judged, over a quarter of those reaching diagnosis returned no crop name, and 35.8% of the labelled problems filed under "disease" are pests, identifiable without the crop. We therefore split the work into three stages: a quality gate (M0), a crop detector (M1), and a disease or pest detector (M2). Route A fills all three with one fine-tuned vision-language model (Qwen3-VL-4B) answering in a single call. Route B fills each with a small specialist model (DaViT, YOLO26). We replace our production GPT-4o quality gate with a small MobileNetV3 gate at 86.9% F1 in 12 ms. On one test set scored the same way for every system, a hierarchical DaViT-Base achieves 95.41% crop accuracy against 91.46% for the production baseline. It also leads on diagnosis and never declines to answer, while every language model in the comparison leaves a large share of rows with no diagnosis. The fine-tuned model retains two capabilities the specialists do not have: one call for all three stages, and a request for a better photograph when the image cannot support an answer.

Analyzing street-view imagery with computer vision models offers a promising approach for rapid, hyperlocal disaster damage assessment, but existing approaches typically rely on black-box pre-trained vision models, which lack interpretability and reliability. This study proposes DamageArbiter, a multimodal disagreement-driven arbitration framework designed to improve the accuracy and reliability of street-view-based damage assessment. DamageArbiter leverages the complementary strengths of unimodal and multimodal models and employs a lightweight logistic regression meta-classifier to arbitrate cases in which model predictions disagree. Using 2,556 post-disaster street-view images, paired with manually generated or large language model (LLM)-generated text descriptions, we systematically compared DamageArbiter with fine-tuned unimodal (image-only and text-only) models and CLIP-based multimodal models in terms of classification performance and overconfidence errors. Results show that DamageArbiter improved accuracy to 75.85% and the Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) to 0.6188, compared with the best-performing text-only baseline (63.07% accuracy, 0.4126 MCC), image-only baseline (74.33% accuracy, 0.5947 MCC), and CLIP baseline (74.22% accuracy, 0.5915 MCC). The overconfidence analysis further reveals that DamageArbiter substantially reduced the overconfidence error from 70.58% for the best-performing baseline, the image-only ViT model, to 16.45%. Overall, this study demonstrates that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating disaster damage classification models and highlights the importance of measuring overconfidence errors as part of model reliability assessment. DamageArbiter thus offers a more reliable framework for rapid, hyperlocal disaster damage assessment from street-view imagery.

Vision-language models (VLMs) show promise for agricultural classification, but zero-shot performance on disease, pest, damage, quality, and species identification remains poor, and it is unclear whether this reflects weak visual features or a failure to connect them to domain knowledge. We build a benchmark of 116 datasets, 834 classes, and 8,324 images spanning these tasks to isolate where the gap arises. Linear probing shows VLM vision encoders already encode agricultural features nearly as separable as a self-supervised DINOv3 baseline, ruling out weak visual representations as the primary bottleneck. Conditioning each model on an oracle reference description (an upper bound on its parametric knowledge) closes most of the gap left by an unaided lower bound, showing VLMs already know more about agriculture than they show. To close this gap without an oracle description at inference time, we structure test-time reasoning around a fixed, per-task diagnostic rubric: the model generates $K$ candidate responses and a Probabilistic Pivot Tournament (PPT) verifier, scored pairwise against the rubric, selects the best one. This nearly doubles judged F1 over the lower bound and matches or exceeds the upper bound on several tasks, notably pushing Gemma 4 E4B-it's disease F1 to 0.71, above its own upper bound of 0.60. However, the verifier's letter-scale confidence score has the opposite of its intended effect: filtering to its most confident predictions does not improve accuracy and correlates negatively with correctness across every model and pool size tested, so the score cannot serve as a measure of predictive uncertainty, and most of the observed gain likely comes from rubric-grounded generation rather than pairwise verification.