Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Macronutrient deficiencies, including nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K), are a major cause of yield loss and reduced crop quality in precision agriculture. Although deep learning models have demonstrated strong performance in visual plant disease and nutrient deficiency recognition, their black-box nature limits interpretability, trust, and practical adoption by agronomists and farmers. In this work, we propose a sign-guided neurosymbolic framework for coffee leaf nutrient deficiency diagnosis that explicitly integrates agronomic knowledge with deep visual perception. The proposed approach introduces a sign-guided learning paradigm in which eight agronomically meaningful visual symptom indicators are first predicted from coffee leaf images using a ResNet-50 backbone. These indicators are then processed by a differentiable fuzzy rule engine that encodes expert-defined nutrient–symptom relationships to infer deficiencies. Unlike conventional CNNs, the model provides both class predictions and interpretable intermediate reasoning through sign activation scores and rule-based decision traces. The framework is further extended with a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) module to provide knowledge-grounded explanations and remedy suggestions based on curated agronomic information. The framework is evaluated on a combined coffee leaf dataset constructed from the CoLeaf and BRACOL benchmarks. Experimental results demonstrate strong performance, achieving an accuracy of 0.88, F1-score of 0.87, AUC-ROC of 0.93, and PR-AUC of 0.91. Qualitative analysis using Grad-CAM and sign-activation visualizations demonstrates that the proposed approach provides semantically aligned explanations beyond conventional visual attribution methods. The proposed framework establishes an interpretable decision-support approach for coffee nutrient deficiency analysis, while further validation across diverse crops and field conditions remains necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ferraro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: