Abstract
Reliable crop disease detection requires models that perform consistently across diverse acquisition conditions, yet existing evaluations often focus on single architectural families or lab-generated datasets. This work presents a systematic empirical comparison of three model paradigms for fine-grained crop disease classification: Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), contrastive Vision-Language Models (VLMs), and generative VLMs. To enable controlled analysis of domain effects, we introduce AgriPath-LF16, a benchmark containing 111k images spanning 16 crops and 41 diseases with explicit separation between laboratory and field imagery, alongside a balanced 30k subset for standardized training and evaluation. All models are trained and evaluated under unified protocols across full, lab-only, and field-only training regimes using macro-F1 and Parse Success Rate (PSR) to account for generative reliability. The results reveal distinct performance profiles. CNNs achieve the highest accuracy on lab imagery but degrade under domain shift. Contrastive VLMs provide a robust and parameter-efficient alternative with competitive cross-domain performance. Generative VLMs demonstrate the strongest resilience to distributional variation, albeit with additional failure modes stemming from free-text generation. These findings highlight that architectural choice should be guided by deployment context rather than aggregate accuracy alone.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13354
