J. ICT Res. Appl., Vol. 17, No.

2, 2023, 167-180 167

Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix

Augmentation for Corn Leaf Diseases Classification based
on ConvMixer Architecture
Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone*

Department of Information Management, Chaoyang University of Technology,

No. 168號, Jifeng E Rd, Wufeng District, Taichung City, 413, Taiwan
*E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Corn leaf diseases such as blight spot, gray leaf spot, and common rust
still lurk in corn fields. This problem must be solved to help corn farmers. The
ConvMixer model, consisting of a patch embedding layer, is a new model with a
simple structure. When training a model with ConvMixer, improvisation is an
important part that needs to be further explored to achieve better accuracy. By
using advanced data augmentation techniques such as MixUp and CutMix, the
robustness of ConvMixer model can be well achieved for corn leaf
diseases classification. We describe experimental evidence in this article
using precision, recall, accuracy score, and F1 score as performance metrics. As a
result, it turned out that the training model with the data set without extension on
the ConvMixer model achieved an accuracy of 0.9812, but this could still be
improved. In fact, when we used the MixUp and CutMix augmentation, the
training model results increased significantly to 0.9925 and 0.9932, respectively.

Keywords: ConvMixer; corn leaf diseases; CutMix; data augmentation; MixUp;

robustness.

1 Introduction
The agricultural sector is an important part of economic development in
Indonesia. As an agricultural country [1,2], Indonesia produces carbohydrates
such as corn [3-5]. Trends in annual corn production in Indonesia go up and
down, following changes in the weather that are increasingly influenced by
climate change [6,7]. Apart from climate change, agricultural success factors can
also be influenced by diseases that attack agricultural crops such as corn [8-10].
Currently, there are three prevalent types of corn disease in Indonesia, i.e., blight
spot, gray leaf spot, and common rust [11]. These diseases often attack maize
crops, thus disrupting the production process.

Seeing the large area of corn plantations, farmers often have difficulty
recognizing the types of diseases that exist in corn plants. The difficulty of
manually identifying [12] the type of disease can be solved by using an
Received July 7th, 2022, 1st Revision October 17th, 2022, 2nd Revision March 13th, 2022, Accepted for
publication May 3rd, 2023.
Copyright © 2023 Published by IRCS-ITB, ISSN: 2337-5787, DOI: 10.5614/itbj.ict.res.appl.2023.17.2.3
168 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

information technology approach based on artificial intelligence such as

classification [13] through computer vision. Currently, there are quite a few
machine learning and deep learning techniques applied in the agricultural sector
[14]. The implementation starts from developing a model that is pretrained for
application in drones, embedded devices, mobile applications, and so on. In
model development, various architectures have been introduced, such as CNN to
Vision Transformer for computer vision tasks [15,16]. Using a CNN is a common
solution that is often used for vision problems, especially for image classification.

Noola and Basavaraju used Enhanced K-Nearest Neighbor (EKNN) by adopting

a basic k-nearest neighbor (KNN) model in their research to find illness
categorization on corn leaves using CNN and different architectures. As a result,
their proposed model achieved excellent accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and
AUC values of 99.86, 99.60, 99.88, and 99.75, respectively [17]. Amin, et al.
conducted a study in 2022 utilizing End-to-End Deep Learning. To extract deep
characteristics from corn plant photos, this model uses two pre-trained
convolutional neural networks (CNNs), i.e., EfficientNetB0 and DenseNet121.
The proposed model achieved a classification accuracy of 98.56 percent,
demonstrating its superiority to ResNet152 and InceptionV3, which obtained a
classification accuracy of 98.37 percent and 96.26 percent, respectively [18].

We investigated recent advancements in this field through Google Research.

Tolstikhin, et al. [19] in 2021 introduced the MLP-Mixer, which uses Multi-
Layer Perceptron (MLP) for computer vision. Dosovitskiy, et al. in 2021
introduced Vision Transformer (ViT) for image classification or computer vision
tasks in general [20]. Using MLP-Mixer, classification problems can be solved
with an accuracy that is quite competitive compared to other models. In further
research, based on the Mixer, Convolutional and Transformer models, Trockman,
et al. (2022) introduced the ConvMixer [21] model to perform computer vision
work. Furthermore, there is a dataset augmentation technique to conduct model
training, called MixUp [22]. Another recent data augmentation method used to
improve the robustness of the model is CutMix [23].

The use of augmented data to increase the robustness of a model has been carried
out by several researchers, including by Zhang in 2021 [24]. In his research,
CutMix enhanced the model’s resistance to input corruption as well as its out-of-
distribution detecting capabilities. The focus of this research was a naturally
enhanced augmentation strategy with superior concision and effectiveness in
classifying Bengali handwritten graphemes. In addition, a similar study for
CutMix was conducted by Wenming, et al. in 2021 [25]. They proposed the
Attention-Guided CutMix Data Augmentation Network (AGCN) to train the
network to pay more attention to minor details in bird parts. The findings showed
that our proposed data augmentation increases the network’s classification
Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix Augmentation 169

performance, and AGCN performs exceptionally well on the demanding dataset

CUB Birds.

The present research focused on applying ConvMixer to solve the problem of

disease classification in corn leaves. This study used an open dataset, where the
processed image was already in the form of a crop image. The main contribution
of this research was to compare preprocessing techniques on data augmentation
using MixUp and CutMix for improving the robustness of the model. In this
paper, we will discuss the ConvMixer-based model, then look at other works
related to the model used. In the next chapter, we will discuss the method used in
processing the disease classification in leaves and then the results of the
performance of the implemented model with data augmentation will be discussed.

ConvMixer consists of a patch embedding layer followed by repeated application

of a simple fully-convolutional block. The creator maintains the spatial structure
of the patch embedding. Patch embedding with patch size p and embedding
dimension h can be implemented for convolution with 𝑐𝑖𝑛 input channels, h
output channels, kernel size p, and stride p. This technique is expressed in Eqs.
(1) to (3).
𝑧0 = 𝐵𝑁(𝜎{𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑐𝑖𝑛 → ℎ (𝑋, 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑒 = 𝑝, 𝑘𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑒𝑙_𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 𝑝)}) (1)
Depthwise convolution (i.e., grouped convolution with groups equal to the
number of channels, h, is followed by pointwise convolution (i.e., kernel size 1
1) in the ConvMixer block. For depthwise convolution, ConvMixer operates best
with extremely large kernel sizes. Following each convolution is an activation
and post-activation BatchNorm:
𝑧𝑙′ = 𝐵𝑁 (𝜎 {𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 (𝑧𝑙−1 )}) + 𝑧𝑙−1 (2)
𝑧𝑙+1 = 𝐵𝑁 (𝜎 {𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑃𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑤𝑖𝑠𝑒 (𝑧𝑙′ ) }) (3)
This conducts global pooling to get a feature vector of size h, which we feed to a
Softmax classifier after several executions of this block. In many ways,
ConvMixer is comparable to ViT (and MLP-Mixer) [21], as can be seen in Figure
1.
170 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

Figure 1 ConvMixer architecture [21].

Data augmentation was introduced in 1998 [26] and was later formalized by some
researchers [27]. Another data augmentation technique, called MixUp, was
developed by Zhang, et al. [22]. To formula for MixUp data augmentation can be
seen in Eqs. (4) and (5).
𝑥̃ = 𝜆𝑥𝑖 + (1 − 𝜆) 𝑥𝑗 (4)
where 𝑥𝑖 , 𝑥𝑗 are raw input vectors, and
𝑦̃ = 𝜆𝑦𝑖 + (1 − 𝜆) 𝑦𝑗 (5)
where 𝑦𝑖 , 𝑦𝑗 are one-hot label encodings.

Note that the lambda values are in the [0, 1] range and are sampled from the beta
distribution [28]. To increase the robustness of the deep learning model that we
implemented, we tried to compare it with a different data augmentation, namely
CutMix. CutMix was first introduced by Sangdoo Yun et al. in 2019 [23]. CutMix
is a data augmentation strategy that tackles the issue of regional dropout
algorithms’ information loss and inefficiency. Rather than removing pixels and
filling them with black or grey pixels or Gaussian noise, the deleted portions are
replaced with a patch from another image, and the ground truth labels are mixed
proportionately to the combined images’ pixel count. The formula used in
CutMix can be seen in Eqs. (6) and (7).
𝑥̃ = 𝑀 𝑥𝑖 + (1 − 𝑀) 𝑥𝑗 (6)
𝑦̃ = 𝜆 𝑦𝑖 + (1 − 𝜆) 𝑦𝑗 (7)
Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix Augmentation 171

where M is a binary mask that indicates the cutout and the fill-in regions from the
two randomly drawn images and 𝜆 in the range [0, 1] is drawn from a beta (α, α)
distribution. The coordinates of the bounding boxer Eq. (8) are:
𝐵 = 𝑟𝑥 , 𝑟𝑦 , 𝑟𝑤 , 𝑟ℎ (8)
which indicates the cutout and fill-in regions in the case of images. The bounding
box sampling is represented by Eqs. (9) and (10):
𝑟𝑥 ~ 𝑈(0, 𝑊), 𝑟𝑤 = 𝑊√1 − 𝜆 (9)
𝑟𝑦 ~ 𝑈(0, 𝐻), 𝑟ℎ = 𝐻√1 − 𝜆 (10)
In conducting this research we evaluated the model using the metrics of precision,
recall, accuracy score, and F1 score [29,30]. The respective metrics can be
represented by Eqs. (11) to (14):
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑇𝑃/(𝑇𝑃 + 𝐹𝑃) (11)
𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙 = 𝑇𝑃/(𝑇𝑃 + 𝐹𝑁) (12)
(𝑇𝑃+𝑇𝑁)
𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 = (13)
𝑇𝑃+𝑇𝑁+𝐹𝑃+𝐹𝑁
(𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛∗𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙)
𝐹1 = 2 ∗ (14)
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛+𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑙

The number of corn leaves properly classified into the corn disease classes, as
determined by the algorithm above, is known as the true positive (TP) rate. The
false positive (FP) rate refers to the number of corn leaves assigned to classes
which they do not belong to. The true negative (TN) rate is the amount of
correctly recognized negative data. False negatives (FN) refer to data being
categorized as negative when it should be positive.

2 Material and Method

In this stage we explain the stages of the experiment. First, we implement data
preparation to measuring the performance of the model used to classify diseases
in corn leaves.

2.1 Research Workflow

In this study, our research workflow is shown in Figure 2. As already shown, the
crop leaf diseases dataset was obtained from the Kaggle open dataset [31]. The
data obtained had a size of 256 x 256 pixels, where in the data preprocessing, the
image size is changed to 64 x 64 pixels to make the computational process easier
when training the model. Furthermore, before creating the model, it is necessary
to prepare an augmented training dataset. In our work, a performance training
model was tested using a non-augmented dataset and augmented dataset (MixUp
172 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

and CutMix). After the augmented data are ready, the next step is to create a
model using the ConvMixer model approach. After that, a training model is
carried out where there are two training datasets used, namely non-augmented
and MixUp augmented. Finally, after the model has been trained, measurements
are made using the model’s performance metrics on the two different training
datasets. The workflow of the whole research can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2 Research workflow.

2.2 Dataset Preparation and Processing

In conducting the data preparation and preprocessing stage, a dataset was
collected from the Kaggle open dataset [31]. The dataset consisted of crop disease
data on leaves of corn, rice, and potato. However, in conducting this research, we
only used corn leaf diseases as a dataset to implement in the model. The dataset
contained 14,632 images in total and had four classes, as shown in Table 1. The
images had an initial size of 256 x 256 pixels and were preprocessed to a smaller
size of 64x64 pixels before the classification process using the selected model.

In Table 1 we can see that there were four label classes in the dataset. Label 0 is
common rust, Label 1 is gray leaf spot, Label 2 is healthy, and Label 3 is leaf
blight.

After identifying the dataset to be used, the next step was to split the dataset into
training, testing and validation data with a portion of 70%, 20% and 10%,
respectively. In the training folder, the number of images from the four classes
was 10,240 images, while the testing folder contained 2,931 images and the
validation folder contained 1,461 images from a total of four classes.
Furthermore, in the preprocessing dataset, we transformed the training, testing,
and validation datasets to one hot encoding so that they represented categorical
variables as binary vectors on the corn leaf diseases dataset.
Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix Augmentation 173

Table 1 Corn leaf classes and labels.

Class Label Image Total

Corn Common 3814

0
Rust

Corn Gray Leaf 3284

1
Spot

Corn Healthy 2 3718

Corn Leaf Blight 3 3816

2.3 Dataset Augmentation

To augment the dataset to increase the model’s robustness, we used MixUp and
CutMix augmentation. In the MixUp routine, we used a new virtual dataset using
the same training dataset and applying a lambda value within the range [0, 1],
sampled from a beta distribution – such that, for example, 𝑛𝑒𝑤_𝑦 = 𝜆 ∗ 𝑦1 +
(1 − 𝜆) ∗ 𝑦2 (where 𝑦1 and 𝑦2 are images) and the same equation was applied
to the labels as well. In this stage, we combined two images to produce one new
image. In principle, we can combine more images than two, only it will affect the
computational cost.

Meanwhile, in the CutMix augmented dataset, CutMix was programmed to use

the entire object extent as classification cue, an approach shared by CutOut [32],
while ensuring that two items are recognized from partial views in a single image
to boost training efficiency. Meanwhile, CutMix was able to precisely locate the
two object classes of corn leaf diseases.

3 Result and Discussion

3.1 Experimental Results

In doing our experiment, in addition to using the original input image data, we
used MixUp and CutMix for the input images. For CutMix, one image class was
combined with another image class chunk and then used as a new image. The
MixUp and CutMix results from the 64 x 64 image input size can be seen in
Figure 3.
174 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

(a) (b)
Figure 3 Data augmentation by using MixUp (a) and CutMix (b) datasets.

In building a pretrained model using the ConvMixer model, a parameter setting

is needed to achieve optimal results in the training process. As an important part
of the ConvMixer architecture, this model has a patch embedding stage followed
by isotropically repeated convolutional blocks. The most important parameter
settings are patch size (4), number of patches (8), embedding dimension (256)
and depth (4).

With these parameter settings, we conducted a dataset training experiment using

the existing model. The first dataset was the non-augmented dataset, with fifty
epochs. Next, we trained the dataset using the MixUp dataset and then the CutMix
dataset to see the effect on the robustness of the model. Furthermore, the model
testing results from the three experiments are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Precision, recall, F1-score non-augmented dataset vs augmented

dataset.

Label
Precision Recall F1-Score Support
Non-Aug MixUp CutMix Non-Aug MixUp CutMix Non-Aug MixUp CutMix
0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 764
1 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.97 0.97 658
2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 745
3 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.98 764

Table 2 illustrates the precision, recall, and F1-score values for the performance
of the ConvMixer model used for testing using the non-augmented, MixUp and
CutMix augmented datasets. It can be seen that for precision, the lowest value
was for Label 1 using the non-augmented dataset; the value obtained was 0.95.
When using the MixUp and CutMix augmented datasets the value increased to
0.98 for the same label. For Label 3, the lowest precision value was on the CutMix
dataset, which was 0.97 while for the other two datasets had a value of 0.98. For
Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix Augmentation 175

the other labels, the precision values for all datasets were the same. Furthermore,
for the recall value, Label 1 had the lowest value for the non-augmented and the
CutMix augmented datasets with a value of 0.97. For Label 3, the lowest recall
value was 0.98 for the non-augmented dataset, while for the other labels the recall
value was the same. Finally, the lowest F1-score value was for Label 1 for the
non-augmented dataset, at 0.96, and the MixUp and Cut Mix augmented datasets
had an F1-score value of 0.97. For Label 3, the highest value was achieved with
the CutMix dataset, at 0.98, while the other datasets had an F1-score value of
0.97, and the other labels had the same F1-score value.

The predictions made for the classification of disease types on corn leaves can be
seen in the confusion matrix in Figure 4. All three figures illustrate the confusion
matrix of the two dataset that were trained differently.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4 Confusion matrix for the non-augmented and augmented datasets.

Figure 4(a) is a confusion matrix of the non-augmented dataset, where for Label
0, containing 764 data, 762 data were correctly classified as corn leaves that have
common rust disease. For Labels 1, 2 and 3, the number of correct classifications
by the model was 632, 745 and 737, respectively. For the result in Figure 4(b),
when we changed the training data to the MixUp data, there was a change in the
test results to 763 that were correctly classified for Label 0. Furthermore, for
Label 1 out of 658 there were 635 data that were correctly predicted as images
with gray leaf spot. For Label 2 out of 745 images all the predicted results were
correct. Finally, for Label 3 out of 764 images, when using the non-augmented
dataset, 737 images were correctly predicted, which increased significantly to 744
images with the MixUp augmented dataset.

Moreover, to increase the robustness of the model we replaced the training data
with the CutMix dataset. The results were surprising because the accuracy
number increased as described in the previous evaluation model. From Figure
4(c), the confusion matrix shows that the prediction results for Label 0 were the
same as for the non-augmented dataset, while for Label 2 it was the same as for
176 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

non-augmented and MixUp augmented dataset. However, for Label 1 and Label
3, the number of correct classifications rise to 636 and 748, respectively.

3.2 Discussion
Using a model with an architecture like ConvMixer certainly makes the model
structure simpler. This is very helpful in the computing process by making it more
efficient. Another thing, which was the focus of the research, is that augmentation
is important to increase the accuracy of the model during training and evaluation.
Given a restricted set of datasets, the model can be trained by making changes to
the existing image. The size of the dataset is increased as a result of the image
change, which contributes to the model’s robustness. To improve the
performance of ConvMixer for classifiers, data augmentation techniques that
improve localization and generalization performance have been proposed.

In this experiment, we compared the ConvMixer model to several state-of-the-art

image classification models, i.e., CNN and modern transformer-based models
such as ViT, Swin Transformer and MLP-Mixer, to see how well it performs.
Using the same dataset, we created these models from scratch. After adjusting the
parameters, the ConvMixer model had a higher accuracy without data
augmentation, at 0.9812. This experiment demonstrated that the ConvMixer
model outperformed the other models in terms of disease classification on corn
leaves.

Table 3 shows the F1 score and accuracy value from a comparison of several
state-of-the-art models. With respect to the accuracy, CNN had the lowest score,
at 0.9696, followed by the other models with higher values than 0.9700, while
ConvMixer had the highest value, at 0.9812. As for the F1-score, in Table 3 the
lowest value is 0.9733 for the CNN model and the highest is 0.9806 for the
ConvMixer model. The ConvMixer model also had an accuracy that could
increase according to our experiments when trained using MixUp and CutMix
augmented data.

Table 3 Comparison between ConvMixer and several other models.

Model F1-Score Accuracy
CNN 0.9733 0.9696
Vision Transformer (ViT) 0.9762 0.9771
MLP-Mixer [33] 0.9803 0.9809
Swin Transformer 0.9805 0.9809
ConvMixer 0.9806 0.9812

Moreover, the ConvMixer model that we used works very well using convolution
at the beginning and then uses a computational process according to the
Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix Augmentation 177

architecture to produce classifications on corn leaf diseases more accurately. Here

are some important discussion points related to our experiments:
1. As in the original paper, MixUp is a data augmentation method that consists
of only two parts, namely random convex combination of raw input from the
corn leaf image, and correspondingly, convex combination of one-hot label
encodings. The experimental results showed that MixUp is a diagnostic and
straightforward data augmentation principle that can be implemented in the
classification of corn leaf disease. With MixUp, another advantage that can
be obtained is that we can create synthetic examples, especially when we
lack a large enough dataset, without incurring high computational costs. In
our experiment, the dataset of corn leaf disease images that was classified
contained less than 20,000 images.
2. CutMix augments the corn leaf disease training images by cutting and
pasting random patches (from four classes). The ground-truth labels are
combined proportionally to the patch size in the image. CutMix improves
localization by directing the model’s attention to less discriminative regions
of the object being classified, making it ideal for tasks such as object
recognition concerning corn leaf diseases.

Another thing that we found in our experiment was that when using an augmented
dataset the accuracy is increased. This confirms the findings of previous
researchers who proved that augmenting the dataset with CutMix will produce
higher accuracy compared to MixUp, which will then be higher with a non-
augmented dataset. This is certainly a recommendation for other research in the
field of deep learning to try augmented data as an important part in producing
better accuracy in the model used.

4 Conclusion
From the results of our experiments, it was proven that the use of the ConvMixer
model could produce an accuracy of 0.9812 for the problem of classifying
diseases in corn leaves. However, the data accuracy results were further improved
by using the MixUp and CutMix augmentation techniques for improving the
robustness of the ConvMixer pretrained model. Our experimental results proved
that there was an increase in the accuracy of the training results on the data
augmented using MixUp and CutMix to 0.9925 and 0.9932, respectively. This
increase in accuracy can help corn farmers and related parties to make decisions
in dealing with corn disease problems. In the future, the early detection of types
of diseases can help farmers in taking precautions that can have a positive impact
on the corn production process. Moreover, this model can be implemented on
embedded devices or mobile devices for solving problems on agricultural land.
178 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

References
[1] Lynch, J., Cain, M., Frame, D. & Pierrehumbert, R., Agriculture’s
Contribution to Climate Change and Role in Mitigation Is Distinct from
Predominantly Fossil CO2-Emitting Sectors, Front. Sustain. Food Syst., 4,
518039, 2021. DOI: 10.3389/FSUFS.2020.518039/BIBTEX.
[2] Timmer, C.P., The Corn Economy of Indonesia, 302p., 1987.
[3] Sumarwati, S., Traditional Ecological Knowledge on the Slope of Mount
Lawu, Indonesia: All About Non-Rice Food Security, J. Ethn. Foods, 9(1),
pp. 1-13, 2022. DOI: 10.1186/S42779-022-00120-Z.
[4] Susanawati., Wijaya, O. & Rizqi, M.B., Local Food Development Strategy
in Hilly Areas of Gunungkidul Indonesia, IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ.
Sci., 1016(1), 012026, 2022. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/1016/1/012026.
[5] Waluyati, L.R., Fadhliani, Z., Anjani, H.D., Siregar, A.P., Susilo, K.R. &
Setyowati, L., Feasibility Study of a Tropical Sweet Corn Farming at the
Center of Innovation and Agrotechnology Universitas Gadjah Mada, IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 1005(1), 012030, 2022. DOI:
10.1088/1755-1315/1005/1/012030.
[6] Naylor, R., Falcon, W., Wada, N. & Rochberg, D., Using El Niño-
Southern Oscillation Climate Data to Improve Food Policy Planning in
Indonesia,” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 38(1), pp. 75-91,
2002. DOI: 10.1080/000749102753620293.
[7] Ruminta, R. & Handoko, H., Vurnerability Assessment of Climate Change
on Agriculture Sector in the South Sumatra Province, Indonesia, Asian J.
Crop Sci., 8(2), pp. 31-42, 2016. DOI: 10.3923/AJCS.2016.31.42.
[8] Xia, X., Wang, Y., Zhou, S., Liu, W. & Wu, H., Genome Sequence
Resource for Bipolaris Zeicola, the Cause of Northern Corn Leaf Spot
Disease, Phytopathology®, 112(5), pp. 1192-1195, 2022. DOI:
10.1094/PHYTO-05-21-0196-A.
[9] Kistner, M.B., Nazar, L., Montenegro, L.D., Cervigni, G.D.L., Galdeano,
E. & Iglesias, J., Detecting Sources of Resistance to Multiple Diseases in
Argentine Maize (Zea Mays L.) Germplasm, Euphytica, 218(5), p. 48,
2022. DOI: 10.1007/S10681-022-03000-4.
[10] De Rossi, R.L., Crop Damage, Economic Losses, and the Economic
Damage Threshold for Northern Corn Leaf Blight, Crop Protection, 154,
pp. 1-10, 2022. DOI: 10.1016/J.CROPRO.2021.105901.
[11] CALS, Diseases of Corn., https://cals.cornell.edu/field-
crops/corn/diseases-corn (Jan. 13, 2022).
[12] Kalidindi, A., Kompalli, P.L., Bandi, S. & Anugu, S.R.R., CT Image
Classification of Human Brain using Deep Learning, Int. J. Online
Biomed. Eng., 17(1), pp. 51–62, 2021. DOI: 10.3991/IJOE.V17I01.18565.
[13] Lakshmi, K.P., Mekala, K.R., Modala, V. Sai, R. Sree., Devalla, V. &
Kompalli, A.B., Leaf Disease Detection and Remedy Recommendation
Improving Robustness Using MixUp and CutMix Augmentation 179

Using CNN Algorithm, Int. J. Online Biomed. Eng., 18(7), pp. 85-100,
2022. DOI: 10.3991/IJOE.V18I07.30383.
[14] Al-Rami, B., Alheeti, K. M.A., Aldosari, W. M., Alshahrani, S.M. & Al-
Abrez, S.M., A New Classification Method for Drone-Based Crops in
Smart Farming, Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol., 16(9), pp. 164-174, 2022.
DOI: 10.3991/IJIM.V16I09.30037.
[15] Basit, A., Siddique, M.A., Bhatti, M.K. & Sarfraz, M.S., Comparison of
CNNs and Vision Transformers-Based Hybrid Models Using Gradient
Profile Loss for Classification of Oil Spills in SAR Images, Remote
Sensing, 14(9), 2085, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/RS14092085.
[16] Guo, M.H., Attention Mechanisms in Computer Vision: A Survey,
Computational Visual Media, pp. 331-368, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/S41095-
022-0271-Y.
[17] Noola, D.A. & Basavaraju, D.R., Corn Leaf Image Classification Based
On Machine Learning Techniques for Accurate Leaf Disease Detection,
Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng., 12(3), pp. 2509-2516, 2022. DOI:
10.11591/IJECE.V12I3.PP2509-2516.
[18] Amin, H., Darwish, A., Hassanien, A.E. & Soliman, M., End-to-End Deep
Learning Model for Corn Leaf Disease Classification, IEEE Access, pp.
31103–31115, 2022. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3159678.
[19] Tolstikhin, I.O., Houlsby, N., Kolesnikov, A., Beyer, L., Zhai, X.,
Unterthiner, T., Yung, J., Steiner, A., Keysers, D., Uszkoreit, J. & Lucic,
M., 2021. MLP-Mixer: An All-MLP Architecture for Vision. Advances in
Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, pp. 24261-24272, 2021.
[20] Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., Weissenborn, D., Zhai, X.,
Unterthiner, T., Dehghani, M., Minderer, M., Heigold, G., Gelly, S. &
Uszkoreit, J., An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image
Recognition at Scale, pp. 1-22, 2020. DOI:2010.11929.
[21] Trockman, A. & Kolter, J.Z., Patches Are All You Need?, pp.1-16 ,2022.
DOI:2201.09792.
[22] Zhang, H., Cisse, M., Dauphin, Y.N. & Lopez-Paz, D., Mixup: Beyond
Empirical Risk Minimization, pp. 1-13, 2017. DOI:1710.09412.
[23] Yun, S., Han, D., Oh, S. J., Chun, S., Choe, J. & Yoo, Y., CutMix:
Regularization Strategy to Train Strong Classifiers with Localizable
Features, EEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision
(ICCV), pp. 6022-6031, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/ICCV.2019.00612.
[24] Zhang, Z., Bengali Handwritten Grapheme Recognition Using CutMix-
Based Data Augmentation, ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser., pp. 145-149,
2021. DOI: 10.1145/3488838.3488863.
[25] Guo, W., Wang, Y. & Han, F., Attention-Guided CutMix Data
Augmentation Network for Fine-Grained Bird Recognition, ACM Int.
Conf. Proceeding Ser., pp. 1-5, 2021. DOI: 10.1145/3469213.3470323.
180 Li-Hua Li & Radius Tanone

[26] Simard, P. Y., LeCun, Y. A., Denker, J. S. & Victorri, B., Transformation
Invariance in Pattern Recognition — Tangent Distance and Tangent
Propagation BT - Neural Networks: Tricks of the Trade, Orr, G.B. &
Müller, K.-R. Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, pp.
239-274, 1998.
[27] Chapelle, O., Weston, J., Bottou, L. & Vapnik, V., Vicinal Risk
Minimization, Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 1-7, 2000.
[28] Keras, Mixup Augmentation for Image Classification.
https://keras.io/examples/vision/mixup/ (Apr. 14, 2022).
[29] Van Rijsbergen, C.J., Information Retrieval, 2nd ed. USA: Butterworth-
Heinemann, 1979.
[30] Sasaki, Y. & Fellow, R., The Truth of the F-Measure, Teach Tutor
Material, 2007.
[31] Kaggle, Bangladeshi Crops Disease Dataset.
https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/nafishamoin/bangladeshi-crops-disease-
dataset (Mar. 29, 2022).
[32] DeVries, T. & Taylor, G.W., Improved Regularization of Convolutional
Neural Networks with Cutout, pp. 1-8, 2017. DOI:
10.48550/arxiv.1708.04552.
[33] Li, L.H., & Tanone, R., MLP-Mixer Approach for Corn Leaf Diseases
Classification, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. (including Subser. Lect.
Notes Artif. Intell. Lect. Notes Bioinformatics), 13758 LNAI, pp.
204-215, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-21967-2_17.