Fusing Perceptual Vision Experts with Multimodal LLMs for Explainable Plant Disease Diagnosis: From Benchmark Imagery to Real-World Robotic Field Validation
Authors: Ranjan Sapkota, Konstantinos I. Roumeliotis, Pengyao Xie, Nikolaos D. Tselikas, Lirong Xiang, Manoj Karkee
Organizations: Cornell University, Department of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Ithaca, 14850, NY, USA · University of the Peloponnese, Department of Informatics and Telecommunications, Tripoli, 22131, Greece · Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Agribusiness and Supply Chain Management, Athens, 11855, Greece
Accurate field plant disease diagnosis requires reliable fusion of uncertain and conflicting perceptual evidence. We present the Hybrid Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework (H2MAF), combining decision-level fusion of EfficientNet-B3 and ConvNeXt-Tiny with semantic arbitration by open-weight multimodal large language models (MLLMs), Gemma 4 E4B and Qwen3.5 4B, using structured JSON evidence to generate explainable diagnoses, risk levels, treatment urgency, and financial exposure. (H2MAF) is evaluated on 14,364 images (1,370 test images) across PlantDoc (2,922 images, 27 classes) and two non-public, continuously captured Cornell robot-acquired field datasets: Stage 2 (20 GB; 4,215 images) and Stage 4 (40 GB; 7,227 images), covering Early Blight, Late Blight, and Septoria Leaf Spot under uncontrolled field conditions. On PlantDoc, Gemma improves accuracy from 63.9% to 68.5%, achieving +7.6 points on the 41.7% CNN-conflict subset. Cornell accuracies reach 99.3% and 98.9%, with only 1.7-4.1% disagreement, demonstrating conflict-dependent MLLM utility. The critical-risk error of gemma is 0.14-0.5 points, whereas Qwen overflags by 3.5-14.4 points. These results establish MLLM arbitration as a promising, yet calibration-dependent, approach for explainable agricultural AI and robotic field decision support. Github Link: https://github.com/Applied-AI-Research-Lab/Explainable-AI-Plant-Disease-Detection
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Representative sample images from the three datasets used in this study. Top row: PlantDoc, internet-scraped “in-the-wild” photographs (27 classes). Middle and bottom rows: Cornell Stage 2 and Stage 4, continuously-captured, autonomous field-robot imagery (3 classes). The visual contrast between crowd-sourced internet photography and continuous field-video frames illustrates the acquisition-modality gap discussed throughout this section.
Dataset
Images
Classes
Test N
Acquisition
Setting
PlantDoc [ 6 , 26 ]
2,922
27
252
Internet-scraped photographs
Public, in-the-wild benchmark
Cornell Stage 2 (this work)
4,215
3
403
Autonomous field-robot video frames, 20 GB
Closed, real-world field data
Cornell Stage 4 (this work)
7,227
3
715
Autonomous field-robot video frames, 40 GB
Closed, real-world field data
Total
14,364
—
1,370
—
—
Table 1: Overview of the three datasets used in this study. “Acquisition” describes how the images were captured, whereas “Setting” indicates whether the source is a public Internet-curated benchmark or a closed, real-world field dataset shared under a research collaboration.
Class
Train
Test
Apple Scab Leaf
83
10
Apple Leaf
79
9
Apple Rust Leaf
96
10
Bell Pepper Leaf
34
8
Bell Pepper Leaf Spot
74
9
Blueberry Leaf
106
11
Table 2: PlantDoc class distribution (27 classes used in experiments).
Figure 2: Demonstration of the customized Amiga robotic phenotyping platform used to collect the Cornell tomato-disease datasets under outdoor field conditions: (a) the robotic data-collection prototype operating during the earlier-season campaign, and (b) the same prototype operating within the denser tomato canopy during the later-season campaign. The platform incorporated five PhenoStereo imaging units, comprising ten RGB cameras and synchronized active strobe-lighting assemblies, to acquire multi-view canopy images while navigating along the crop rows.
Dataset
Images
Classes
Setting
CNN Acc.
PlantVillage [ 2 ]
54,306
38
Lab, public
> 99%
PlantDoc [ 6 ]
2,598
27
Field, public
60–75%
PlantDoc v7 (this work)
2,922
27
Field, public
63.9%
Cornell Stage 2 (this work)
4,215
3
Field, closed
99.8%
Cornell Stage 4 (this work)
7,227
3
Field, closed
98.3%
Table 3: Comparison of plant disease image datasets relevant to this study.
Figure 3: H 2 MAF pipeline, applied uniformly across the three datasets. Two CNN experts (Phase 1) feed a structured JSON artefact (Phase 2) which, together with the original image, is processed by two MLLM reasoning agents (Phase 3) to produce structured XAI reports.
Parameter
EfficientNet-B3
ConvNeXt-Tiny
Input resolution
300×300
224×224
Pre-trained weights
ImageNet-1k
ImageNet-1k
Fine-tuning strategy
Partial fine-tuning (top 30%)
Full-network fine-tuning
Optimizer
AdamW
AdamW
Learning rate
1×10−4
4×10−4
Learning-rate schedule
Cosine annealing
Cosine annealing with 5-epoch warm-up
Table 4: Fine-tuning hyperparameters for the two CNN perceptual experts, applied uniformly to PlantDoc and both Cornell datasets.
Class
P
R
F1
N
Gem
Qwn
Apple Scab Leaf
0.78
0.70
0.74
10
90%
70%
Apple Leaf
0.57
0.89
0.70
9
78%
67%
Apple Rust Leaf
1.00
0.60
0.75
10
60%
70%
Bell Pepper Leaf
0.80
0.50
0.62
8
62%
62%
Bell Pepper Leaf Spot
0.45
0.56
0.50
9
56%
67%
Blueberry Leaf
0.88
0.64
0.74
11
45%
64%
Table 5: Full per-class results on PlantDoc. CNX = ConvNeXt-Tiny (Precision / Recall / F1); Gem = Gemma 4 E4B (top-1 accuracy); Qwn = Qwen3.5 4B (top-1 accuracy). N = test support. Best accuracy per class in bold.
Model
Acc.
Macro F1
W. F1
Cov.
EfficientNet-B3
59.1%
0.5857
0.5872
100%
ConvNeXt-Tiny
63.9%
0.6393
0.6479
100%
Gemma 4 E4B (MLLM)
68.5%
0.6843
0.6906
94.4%
Qwen3.5 4B (MLLM)
67.2%
0.6761
0.6788
96.8%
Table 6: Classification performance on the PlantDoc test set (252 images, 27 classes). Coverage: fraction of test images for which the model produced a parseable prediction. Best results in bold .
Study
Model(s)
Acc.
Full split?
Singh et al. [ 6 ]
VGG-16, ResNet-50
30–50%
Partial
Taneja et al. [ 31 ]
Custom CNN, VGG-16
60–70%
Partial
Shiyan et al. [ 32 ]
MobileNetV3, Eff-B0, DenseNet-121
60–75%
Yes
Fatma et al. [ 33 ]
YOLOv8, EfficientNet-B0
65–75%
Yes
Wojciuk et al. [ 34 ]
Fine-tuned CNNs (HPO)
70–80%
No (balanced subset)
Hasan et al. [ 35 ]
YOLOv11n + ECA-NFNet
75–80%
No (two-stage)
Table 7: PlantDoc classification accuracy reported in recent literature. “Full split” indicates use of the official 27-class train/test split without class-balanced subsetting or external data.
Model
Agree (147)
Disagree (105)
EfficientNet-B3
78.2%
32.4%
ConvNeXt-Tiny
78.2%
43.8%
Gemma 4 E4B (MLLM)
76.9%
47.6%
Qwen3.5 4B (MLLM)
75.9%
51.4%
Table 8: PlantDoc: accuracy conditioned on vision expert agreement. All four models are evaluated separately on the 147 consensus images and the 105 conflict images.
Override type
Gemma 4 E4B
Qwen3.5 4B
Cases
Acc.
Cases
Acc.
Agrees with both CNNs
138
81.2%
138
79.7%
Agrees w/ ConvNeXt only
80
50.0%
83
50.6%
Agrees w/ EfficientNet
12
66.7%
12
75.0%
Overrides both CNNs
22
13.6%
17
17.6%
Table 9: PlantDoc: MLLM override behaviour and accuracy per override type.
Outcome
Gemma
Qwen
MLLM improves over best CNN
3 cases (1.2%)
3 cases (1.2%)
MLLM hurts vs. best CNN
35 cases (13.9%)
32 cases (12.8%)
Neutral (same outcome)
214 cases (84.9%)
215 cases (86.0%)
Rescue rate (both CNNs wrong)
5.3% (3/57)
5.3% (3/57)
Damage rate (both CNNs right)
2.6% (3/115)
2.6% (3/115)
Table 10: PlantDoc: per-image outcomes when comparing each MLLM against the best available CNN prediction.
Confidence bucket
Images
ConvNeXt
Gemma
High ( ≥ 0.8)
110
81.8%
80.9%
Medium (0.5–0.8)
94
57.4%
57.4%
Low ( < 0.5)
48
35.4%
41.7%
Table 11: PlantDoc: accuracy conditioned on the maximum CNN confidence score, a proxy for image difficulty.
Model
Critical
High
Medium
Low
Gemma 4 E4B
25 (9.9%)
99 (39.3%)
87 (34.5%)
41 (16.3%)
Qwen3.5 4B
92 (36.5%)
58 (23.0%)
51 (20.2%)
49 (19.4%)
Table 12: PlantDoc: business risk level distribution assigned by the MLLM reasoning agents across 252 test images.
Model
Acc.
Macro F1
W. F1
Cov.
EfficientNet-B3
98.5%
0.9852
0.9852
100%
ConvNeXt-Tiny
99.8%
0.9974
0.9975
100%
Gemma 4 E4B (MLLM)
99.3%
0.9921
0.9925
100%
Qwen3.5 4B (MLLM)
97.7%
0.9763
0.9773
98.5%
Table 13: Cornell Stage 2: classification performance (403 test images, 3 classes). Best results in bold .
Class
P
R
F1
N
Early Blight
1.00
1.00
1.00
147
Late Blight
0.99
1.00
1.00
141
Septoria Leaf Spot
1.00
0.99
1.00
115
Table 14: Cornell Stage 2: per-class precision/recall/F1 (ConvNeXt-Tiny) and Gemma accuracy. N = test support.
Override type
Gemma
Qwen
Cases
Acc.
Cases
Acc.
Agrees with both CNNs
396
100.0%
387
100.0%
Agrees w/ ConvNeXt only
5
80.0%
1
100.0%
Agrees w/ EfficientNet
2
0.0%
2
0.0%
Overrides both CNNs
0
N/A
8
0.0%
Table 15: Cornell Stage 2: MLLM override behaviour and accuracy per override type.
Model
Critical
High
Medium/Low/Unk.
Gemma 4 E4B
139 (34.5%)
78 (19.4%)
186 (46.2%) / 0 / 0
Qwen3.5 4B
127 (31.5%)
25 (6.2%)
230 (57.1%) / 16 (4.0%) / 5 (1.2%)
Table 16: Cornell Stage 2: business risk level distribution across 403 test images.
Model
Acc.
Macro F1
W. F1
Cov.
EfficientNet-B3
96.8%
0.9725
0.9679
100%
ConvNeXt-Tiny
98.3%
0.9856
0.9833
100%
Gemma 4 E4B (MLLM)
98.9%
0.9900
0.9888
100%
Qwen3.5 4B (MLLM)
91.8%
0.9108
0.9200
98.9%
Table 17: Cornell Stage 4: classification performance (715 test images, 3 classes). Best results in bold .
Class
P
R
F1
N
Early Blight
0.99
0.97
0.98
329
Late Blight
1.00
1.00
1.00
146
Septoria Leaf Spot
0.96
0.99
0.98
240
Table 18: Cornell Stage 4: per-class precision/recall/F1 (ConvNeXt-Tiny). N = test support.
Override type
Gemma
Qwen
Cases
Acc.
Cases
Acc.
Agrees with both CNNs
686
99.6%
634
99.8%
Agrees w/ ConvNeXt only
19
89.5%
13
76.9%
Agrees w/ EfficientNet
9
77.8%
7
71.4%
Overrides both CNNs
1
0.0%
54
1.9%
Table 19: Cornell Stage 4: MLLM override behaviour and accuracy per override type.
Model
Critical
High
Medium/Low/Unk.
Gemma 4 E4B
147 (20.6%)
229 (32.0%)
339 (47.4%) / 0 / 0
Qwen3.5 4B
249 (34.8%)
147 (20.6%)
306 (42.8%) / 5 (0.7%) / 8 (1.1%)
Table 20: Cornell Stage 4: business risk level distribution across 715 test images.
Figure 4: Top-1 accuracy of all four models across the three evaluation datasets. All models improve substantially from PlantDoc’s 27-class, internet-curated benchmark to the 3-class, real-world Cornell field datasets, with the CNN experts and Gemma remaining stable across both Cornell campaigns while Qwen shows greater variability.
Dataset
Test N
Agree
Disagree ( n )
Best CNN (conflict)
Best MLLM (conflict)
PlantDoc
252
58.3%
41.7% (105)
43.8% (ConvNeXt)
51.4% (Qwen), + 7.6 pp
Cornell Stage 2
403
98.3%
1.7% (7)
85.7% (ConvNeXt)
57.1% (Gemma), − 28.6 pp
Cornell Stage 4
715
95.9%
4.1% (29)
69.0% (ConvNeXt)
82.8% (Gemma), + 13.8 pp
Table 21: Cross-dataset synthesis: vision-expert agreement/disagreement rate and best-MLLM vs. best-CNN accuracy on the conflict-only subset.
Figure 5: (a) Vision-expert agreement/disagreement rate across the three datasets. (b) Best-MLLM minus best-CNN accuracy on the conflict-only image subset for each dataset, with sample size n annotated. MLLM arbitration provides a substantial, positive gain when the conflict subset is reasonably sized (PlantDoc, n=105 ; Stage 4, n=29 ), but the tiny Stage 2 conflict subset ( n=7 ) is dominated by sampling noise and should not be interpreted as evidence against the framework.
Figure 6: Critical-risk assignment rate for Gemma 4 E4B and Qwen3.5 4B across the three datasets. Dashed lines indicate the true prevalence of the sole “high risk-aversion” disease class (Late Blight) in the two Cornell test sets, providing an objective calibration target. Gemma’s Critical rate tracks true prevalence almost exactly (0.14–0.5-point error); Qwen consistently over-flags (3.5–14.4-point error).
Dataset
True prevalence
Gemma CRCE
Qwen CRCE
Cornell Stage 2
35.0%
0.5 pp
3.5 pp
Cornell Stage 4
20.4%
0.14 pp
14.4 pp
Table 22: Critical-Risk Calibration Error (CRCE): absolute difference between assigned Critical-risk rate and true Late Blight prevalence, on the two Cornell datasets where ground truth is well defined.
Figure 7: Confusion matrix of ConvNeXt-Tiny predictions on the 27-class PlantDoc test set. Rows represent ground-truth classes, whereas columns represent predicted classes. Although most predictions are concentrated along the main diagonal, off-diagonal errors remain among visually similar disease categories, especially within the tomato classes. The matrix illustrates the difficulty of fine-grained disease recognition under heterogeneous backgrounds, illumination conditions, symptom appearances, and limited class-specific test support.
Figure 8: Confusion matrix of ConvNeXt-Tiny predictions on the Cornell Stage 2 test set. Rows denote ground-truth disease classes and columns denote predicted classes. The strongly diagonal distribution demonstrates high discrimination among Early Blight, Late Blight, and Septoria Leaf Spot under the Stage 2 field-acquisition conditions, with only a very small number of cross-class errors.
Figure 9: Confusion matrix of ConvNeXt-Tiny predictions on the Cornell Stage 4 test set. The matrix remains strongly concentrated along the main diagonal, indicating robust discrimination among the three tomato foliar diseases. The principal residual confusion occurs when a small number of Septoria Leaf Spot images are classified as Early Blight, reflecting the partially overlapping necrotic lesion characteristics of these diseases under natural field conditions.
Accurate and interpretable plant disease diagnosis remains a major challenge for vision-language models (VLMs) in real-world agriculture. We introduce AgriChain, a dataset of approximately 11,000 expert-curated leaf images spanning diverse crops and pathologies, each paired with (i) a disease label, (ii) a calibrated confidence score (High/Medium/Low), and (iii) an expert-verified chain-of-thought (CoT) rationale. Draft explanations were first generated by GPT-4o and then verified by a professional agricultural engineer using standardized descriptors (e.g., lesion color, margin, and distribution). We fine-tune Qwen2.5-VL-3B on AgriChain, resulting in a specialized model termed AgriChain-VL3B, to jointly predict diseases and generate visually grounded reasoning. On a 1,000-image test set, our CoT-supervised model achieves 73.1% top-1 accuracy (macro F1 = 0.466; weighted F1 = 0.655), outperforming strong baselines including Gemini 1.5 Flash, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o Mini. The generated explanations align closely with expert reasoning, consistently referencing key visual cues. These findings demonstrate that expert-verified reasoning supervision significantly enhances both accuracy and interpretability, bridging the gap between generic multimodal models and human expertise, and advancing trustworthy, globally deployable AI for sustainable agriculture. The dataset and code are publicly available at: https://github.com/hazzanabeel12-netizen/agrichain
Hazza Mahmood, Yongqiang Yu, Rao Anwer
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Plant disease diagnosis is critical for food security, yet training disease-recognition models that generalize across crops, pathogens, and field conditions remains challenging because labeled disease images are far less abundant and standardized than data for other biotic stresses such as insects or weeds. Frontier vision-language models offer new opportunities through improved visual reasoning, but they still struggle with fine-grained disease identification due to the lack of structured, crop-specific symptom knowledge. To address this gap, we curate the largest plant disease image--symptom dataset to date, covering 335 crops, 1{,}251 disease classes, and approximately 839K images, designed to support training-free, agentic disease prediction. A scalable automated pipeline generates source-grounded symptom descriptions in which each claim is linked to a verbatim web quote; domain experts validate sampled crops and reconcile disease-name variants across sources. As a baseline, we introduce an autonomous visual reasoning agent that identifies anatomical context, narrows candidate diseases using symptom knowledge, sequentially compares reference images, and produces a fully explainable reasoning trace. Incorporating symptom knowledge improves accuracy by 16.2 percentage points on average at the full reference budget, with consistent gains across all four evaluation crops. Because the framework only requires crop-specific reference images and symptom knowledge, it can be extended to new crops without retraining, while the agentic baseline can directly benefit from future improvements in foundation model capabilities. Dataset and code are available at:https://sage-dataset.github.io/.
Muhammad Arbab Arshad, Tirtho Roy, Yanben Shen +7
Iowa State University, USA · New York University, USA
The deployment of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) in agriculture is currently stalled by a critical trade-off: the existing literature lacks the large-scale agricultural datasets required for robust model development and evaluation, while current state-of-the-art models lack the verified domain expertise necessary to reason across diverse taxonomies. To address these challenges, we propose the Vision-to-Verified-Knowledge (V2VK) pipeline, a novel generative AI-driven annotation framework that integrates visual captioning with web-augmented scientific retrieval to autonomously generate the AgriMM benchmark, effectively eliminating biological hallucinations by grounding training data in verified phytopathological literature. The AgriMM benchmark contains over 3,000 agricultural classes and more than 607k VQAs spanning multiple tasks, including fine-grained plant species identification, plant disease symptom recognition, crop counting, and ripeness assessment. Leveraging this verifiable data, we present AgriChat, a specialized MLLM that presents broad knowledge across thousands of agricultural classes and provides detailed agricultural assessments with extensive explanations. Extensive evaluation across diverse tasks, datasets, and evaluation conditions reveals both the capabilities and limitations of current agricultural MLLMs, while demonstrating AgriChat's superior performance over other open-source models, including internal and external benchmarks. The results validate that preserving visual detail combined with web-verified knowledge constitutes a reliable pathway toward robust and trustworthy agricultural AI. The code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/boudiafA/AgriChat .
Abderrahmene Boudiaf, Irfan Hussain, Sajid Javed
Department of Computer Science, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates