Enhancing Deep Learning Model Performance through Data Generation Strategies: Classification of Olive Tree Diseases
Organizations: Computer Science and Applications Laboratory, Faculty of Sciences, Moulay Ismail University of Meknes, PB 11201 Zitoune, Meknes, 50000, Morocco . · Euromed University of Fez, Fez, Morocco .
Abstract
Deep learning models are highly effective in a wide range of domains, particu larly in plant disease diagnosis. However, their performance is often limited by challenges such as insufficient data and class imbalance. In our work, we propose a comprehensive data generation strategy to overcome these limitations. First, we apply various data generation techniques, including traditional augmentation methods, CutMix, MixUp, and synthetic image generation using Deep Convolu tional Generative Adversarial Networks (DCGANs), to create new data samples. Second, we exploit this generated data in three scenarios: (S1) balancing class distribution in the original dataset, (S2) increasing the number of samples per class, and (S3) expanding the dataset while maintaining balanced classes. Third, we evaluate the impact of these data distributions (S1, S2, S3) on model perfor mance using the EfficientNetV2B0 architecture with pre-trained and fine-tuned weights. The experimental results show a substantial improvement in classifica tion accuracy, emphasizing the critical role of data diversity and class balance. These findings highlight the effectiveness and adaptability of the proposed strat egy of data generation and distribution for enhancing dataset quality, offering promising applications in plant disease detection and precision agriculture.
Figures & tables
| Study | Methodology | Dataset | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tabbakh and Barpanda (2023) | Hybrid model (TLMViT) with transfer learning | Wheat disease dataset | 99.86% accuracy |
| Mhala et al. (2025) | Data augmentation, L2 regularization, transfer learning | Potato disease dataset | 81.31% accuracy |
| Singh and Sanodiya (2023) | Zero-shot transfer learning | Tomato | - |
| Sathya et al. (2025) | Conditional GANs | multiple plant | 98.78% accuracy |
| Wu et al. (2023) | ConvNeXt with attention and random masking | Soybean leaf disease dataset | 85.42% accuracy |
| Karthikeyan and Raja (2023) | DenseNet-based CBIR (DTLDN-CBIRA) | multiple plant | 100% accuracy, 81.90% recall, 89.90% F1-score |
| Study | Methods | Dataset | Accuracy | Data Generation Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruz et al. (2017) | Computer vision-based deep learning | Olive leaf (1 disease + healthy) | 98.60 ± 1.47% | None |
| Uğuz and Uysal (2021) | Deep learning (with augmentation) | Olive leaf (2 diseases + healthy) | 95% | Traditional Augmentation |
| Alshammari et al. (2022b) | Deep learning + genetic algorithm | Olive leaf (2 diseases + healthy) | 96% (multi-class), 98% (binary) | Traditional Augmentation |
| Alshammari et al. (2022a) | CNN + Vision Transformer | Olive leaf (2 diseases + healthy) | 97% (binary), 96% (multi-class) | Traditional Augmentation |
| Ksibi et al. (2022) | MobiRes-Net (ResNet50 + MobileNet) | UAV-acquired images (5,400 samples) | 97.08% | Traditional Augmentation |
| Alshammari et al. (2023) | Optimized ANN + WOA | Olive leaf (2 diseases + healthy) | 98% | Traditional Augmentation |
| Plant | Class | DataSet A | DataSet B (Test) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Olive | Healthy | 1292 | 471 |
| Aculus Olearius | 712 | 384 | |
| Olive Peacock Spot | 1716 | 703 | |
| Olive Leaf Scorch | 68 | 43 | |
| Sooty mold | 205 | 56 | |
| Deficiency | 206 | 56 |
| Process | Approximate Duration |
|---|---|
| Data Generation using DCGAN (Generated Data) | 3 months |
| Traditional Data Augmentation (e.g., Flip, Rotation) | 1 hour |
| Data generation using MixUp and CutMix | 1 hour |
| Selection of High-Quality (Generated Data) using Frechet Inception Distance (FID) | 2 months |
| Training of Classification Models (EfficientNetV2B0) | 30 minutes per experiment (see Table 5 ) |
| No Aug. | Traditional Aug. | MixUp | CutMix | DCGAN | All Comb. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc. | Acc. | Diff. | Acc. | Diff. | Acc. | Diff. | Acc. | Diff. | Acc. | Diff. | |
| S1 | – | 91.56 | +0.57 | 91.50 | +0.51 | 91.90 | +0.91 | 92.24 | +1.25 | 93.09 | +2.10 |
| S2 | – | 90.76 | -0.23 | 91.73 | +0.74 | 90.71 | -0.28 | 91.33 | +0.34 | 93.48 | +2.49 |
| S3 | – | 90.76 | -0.23 | 91.10 | +0.11 | 92.29 | +1.30 | 91.39 | +0.40 | 90.93 | -0.06 |
| Baseline | 90.99 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| Data Generation | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | G-mean | MCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | None | 92.14 | 88.04 | 89.63 | 87.66 | 87.53 |
| S1 | Traditional Aug. | 92.38 | 88.67 | 89.89 | 87.99 | 88.35 |
| Mixup | 92.05 | 91.50 | 91.48 | 89.19 | 88.46 | |
| Cutmix | 92.17 | 91.90 | 91.91 | 89.25 | 88.77 | |
| DCGAN | 93,66 | 93,09 | 93,14 | 90,55 | 90,55 | |
| All Combination | 93.89 | 90.70 | 91.89 | 90.37 | 90.15 |
Synthetic Data Augmentation
Synthetic data augmentation creates or modifies training examples to improve learning when real data are scarce, imbalanced, costly, or sensitive.
See all 456 papers