Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 May 15;21(5):e0349210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349210

A curated dataset and lightweight deep learning framework for tea leaf disease classification

Sakibul Hasan Chowdhury 1,#, Md Shohel Arman 1,*,#, Masrafe Bin Hannan Siam 1,#, Md Rayhan Khan 1,#, Afia Hasan 1,, Parvez Ahmed Moju Fahim 2,
Editor: Asadullah Shaikh3
PMCID: PMC13178992  PMID: 42139322

Abstract

Tea (Camellia sinensis) is the world’s second most consumed beverage, enjoyed daily by more than two billion people. In Bangladesh, it serves as a cornerstone agricultural export and a major sector of the domestic economy. However, commercial tea cultivation remains highly vulnerable to fungal and pest-related diseases such as Blight, Red Rust, and Helopeltis which severely reduce crop yield and compromise leaf quality. While early detection is critical to preventing widespread outbreaks, traditional manual inspection is slow, subjective, and highly error-prone. Deep learning provides a scalable alternative, yet single-branch networks often struggle to capture both minute disease lesions and broader structural degradation simultaneously. To address this, we propose a Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture that runs two highly efficient feature extractors in parallel: EfficientNetV2-Small to isolate fine-grained local textures, and MobileNetV3-Small to capture the global structural context of the leaf. The models were trained and evaluated on a real-world dataset of 2,000 annotated images, evenly distributed across the four target classes (Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy). Before training, the images underwent a standardized preprocessing pipeline including resizing to 224 × 224 pixels and normalization, supplemented by a dynamic augmentation strategy featuring random rotations, horizontal flips, and brightness adjustments to improve model robustness. The proposed hybrid framework achieved an outstanding peak classification accuracy of 96.80% alongside a macro Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.9980. To rigorously validate its performance, the hybrid model was benchmarked against six diverse architectures: a Vision Transformer (ViT-B16 at 76.40%), a Custom CNN (89.60%), MobileNetV3 (94.40%), ResNet50 (95.60%), DenseNet121 (96.40%), and EfficientNetV2-B3 (97.60%). Although EfficientNetV2-B3 achieved a marginally higher raw accuracy, the proposed dual-branch framework delivered a superior precision-recall balance and faster convergence stability. These findings demonstrate that the proposed hybrid methodology is highly reliable and computationally balanced, making it an ideal candidate for integration into Internet of Things (IoT) edge devices for real-time disease monitoring in precision agriculture.

Introduction

Tea (Camellia sinensis) is the world’s second most popular beverage after water, cherished for its unique taste, aroma, and health benefits [1]. Every day, more than two billion people across the globe drink tea, making it one of the most significant agricultural products [2]. Rich in bioactive compounds such as polyphenols and antioxidants, tea is known to reduce cardiovascular risks, strengthen immunity, and promote overall well-being [3]. Beyond its nutritional value, tea also carries deep cultural meaning, often symbolizing hospitality, social connection, and tradition [4].

Bangladesh is among the leading tea producers in the world, with a history of cultivation dating back to the British colonial era [5]. At present, over 168 estates across Sylhet and Chittagong cover nearly 280,000 acres of land, contributing greatly to the national economy [6]. The tea sector also provides livelihoods for more than four million people, highlighting its role as a cornerstone of rural life [7]. Despite this importance, tea cultivation is constantly threatened by fungal, bacterial, and insect-related diseases [8]. Blight (Gray and Brown), Red Rust, and Helopeltis (tea mosquito bug) are among the most common issues, often leading to reduced yield, increased production costs, and compromised tea quality [9,10]. These diseases affect photosynthesis, weaken plant health, and ultimately degrade the flavor and aroma of processed tea [11,12]. In severe cases, unchecked outbreaks can result in widespread financial loss and supply chain disruptions [13].

Traditionally, tea disease detection has relied on manual field inspections. While widely practiced, this approach is labor-intensive, subjective, and often inaccurate [14]. The similarity of symptoms between different diseases makes diagnosis difficult, and the vast size of plantations makes continuous monitoring unrealistic [15]. These challenges emphasize the need for automated, intelligent, and scalable systems for early disease detection [16].

Recent advances in deep learning (DL) have shown encouraging results in crop disease detection for plants like rice, maize, and tomato [17]. However, the tea industry still lacks large, standardized, and annotated datasets. Most available datasets are either too small, poorly labeled, or collected under controlled conditions that do not reflect real-world challenges [18]. This scarcity limits the ability to train robust models and prevents meaningful benchmarking across studies [19].

Recent literature has extensively explored the deployment of lightweight convolutional neural networks, particularly MobileNetV3, for automated plant disease classification due to their low computational footprint. While foundational MobileNetV3 implementations have shown promise [20], recent advancements have primarily focused on optimizing this single-branch architecture by integrating attention mechanisms [21] or coupling it with 2D Discrete Wavelet Transforms (DWT) for frequency-domain feature extraction [22,23]. Other studies have heavily relied on transfer learning to adapt MobileNetV3 to broader disease taxonomies [24]. However, despite these enhancements, relying on a single structural backbone inherently limits the network’s ability to simultaneously capture minute, fine-grained localized lesions and broader global structural degradation. To overcome this critical bottleneck and advance beyond standard baseline implementations, our study introduces a novel Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture. Rather than optimizing a generic MobileNetV3 backbone in isolation, our methodology uniquely runs EfficientNetV2-Small in parallel to isolate highly detailed local textures, utilizing MobileNetV3-Small strictly as a global structural proxy. This dual-branch fusion directly addresses the representational limitations of existing standalone applications.

Recent advancements in 2024 and 2025 have predominantly focused on optimizing single-branch networks and exploring transformer-based architectures for tea leaf disease classification. For instance, recent studies have evaluated Vision Transformers (ViTs) alongside established Convolutional Neural Networks, demonstrating strong classification accuracy but noting that ViTs inherently require massive datasets to prevent overfitting [25]. Concurrently, other researchers have integrated advanced attention mechanisms into lightweight object detection frameworks like YOLOv8 and YOLO11 to improve lesion detection in complex backgrounds [2629]. However, a persistent limitation across these highly optimized single-branch and transformer models is the difficulty in simultaneously decoupling minute, localized disease textures from the broader structural degradation of the leaf without significantly inflating computational demands. These constraints underscore the critical necessity of our proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture. By running EfficientNetV2-Small and MobileNetV3-Small in parallel, our dual-branch framework effectively isolates fine-grained local symptoms while preserving global context, achieving robust diagnostic precision without the prohibitive data dependency or computational overhead of recent transformer alternatives.

In this study, we introduce a dataset comprising 2,000 images across four classes: Blight (Gray and Brown), Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy leaves. The images were collected from tea gardens in Bangladesh under natural field conditions and carefully annotated by experts. To ensure model robustness, the images were standardized through resizing to 224 × 224 pixels and normalization, complemented by a dynamic data augmentation strategy including rotations, horizontal flips, and brightness adjustments to enrich dataset diversity [19].

To validate the usability of the dataset, a suite of deep learning models was evaluated, including our proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion Architecture, which achieved an overall accuracy of 96.80% in classifying tea leaf diseases.

Distinctive contributions

The key contributions of this study are as follows:

  • Curated Dataset: Creation of a high-quality, real-world dataset comprising 2,000 expertly annotated images spanning four distinct categories: Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy tea leaves.

  • Robust Data Pipeline: Implementation of a standardized preprocessing workflow coupled with dynamic, on-the-fly spatial and pixel-level augmentations—including rotations, horizontal flips, and brightness adjustments—to substantially enhance dataset diversity and model generalization [19].

  • Novel Architectural Framework: Development and rigorous evaluation of a custom Hybrid Feature Fusion model that utilizes EfficientNetV2-S and MobileNetV3-S in parallel to process local textures and global structures, achieving a highly competitive peak classification accuracy of 96.80% and an outstanding macro AUC of 0.9980.

  • Comprehensive Benchmarking: Establishment of a standardized comparative analysis evaluating seven diverse deep learning architectures—ranging from specialized CNNs and mobile-optimized networks to Vision Transformers—to provide a robust baseline for agricultural AI research.

  • Practical Relevance: Demonstration of a highly efficient, dual-branch framework that optimally balances diagnostic precision with computational efficiency, highlighting its strong potential for integration into IoT and mobile edge platforms for real-time monitoring in commercial tea plantations [30].

Integrated methodology

The complete workflow of the proposed tea leaf disease detection system is summarized in Fig 1. First, images of Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy leaves are captured in tea gardens and stored in a centralized repository. After visual screening and expert annotation, the selected images are standardized to 224 × 224 pixels and pre-processed through RGB color space conversion and ImageNet-based normalization to ensure consistent input distribution across the network architectures.

Fig 1. Overview of the integrated methodology for tea leaf disease classification, from data acquisition and preprocessing to model training, evaluation, and final prediction.

Fig 1

The processed dataset is split into training (80%), validation (10%), and testing (10%) subsets using a stratified approach to maintain class proportions. To effectively increase variability and prevent model overfitting, only the training set is dynamically augmented utilizing the Albumentations framework. These specific augmentations include random rotations of up to 15 degrees, horizontal flips, and stochastic brightness and contrast adjustments. The validation and test sets remain strictly unaugmented, ensuring a fair and unbiased evaluation of the models’ generalization capabilities.

The augmented training images are utilized to train and systematically evaluate an expanded suite of seven neural network architectures: a Custom CNN, ResNet50, DenseNet121, MobileNetV3, EfficientNetV2-B3, Vision Transformer (ViT-B16), and our proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture. The networks are trained using the AdamW optimizer for enhanced weight decay management, coupled with a dynamically class-weighted Cross-Entropy loss function—alongside Focal Loss and Label Smoothing alternatives—to robustly address any underlying class imbalance. Following an early-stopping protocol driven by validation loss monitoring with a patience of 10 epochs, the models are rigorously evaluated on the unseen test set using accuracy, macro F1-score, Area Under the Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity metrics.

Data collection

The images used in this study were collected from major tea-growing areas of Bangladesh. These images were manually captured between April 7, 2025, and June 23, 2025, from the tea gardens in the Sylhet region, specifically within the Habiganj district. These regions were selected as they represent some of the oldest and largest tea plantations in the country and routinely experience prevalent diseases such as Blight, Red Rust, and Helopeltis.

Field visits were carried out during regular working hours, and leaves were photographed directly on the plants under natural lighting conditions. To ensure the dataset accurately reflects the complexities of real-world agricultural environments, images were captured across a diverse range of natural conditions, including bright midday sunlight, overcast skies, and partial canopy shading. These variations introduced complex shadows and specular highlights, while the presence of background clutter—such as overlapping leaves, branches, and soil—requires the models to successfully isolate pathological symptoms from noisy environments. The dataset includes leaves photographed from multiple orientations and distances, capturing diseases at various stages of severity, from early-stage necrotic spots to advanced structural degradation. After removing blurred or ambiguous samples, a final set of 2,000 images was retained, spanning four target classes: Blight (Gray and Brown), Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy. All images in this dataset were captured using an iPhone 12 Pro Max, equipped with a 12-megapixel triple-camera system (comprising Ultra-Wide, Wide, and Telephoto lenses). The camera produced high-resolution images ranging from 1080x1080 to 3024x3024 pixels, ensuring the detailed capture of microscopic leaf textures, subtle disease symptoms, and complex background conditions. The device’s advanced image processing algorithms enabled accurate color reproduction, sharpness, and clarity under natural field conditions.

To ensure high fidelity, a rigorous multi-stage annotation protocol was implemented. All 2,000 images were independently inspected by agricultural domain experts specializing in plant pathology. The classification criteria were strictly based on established phenotypic markers: characteristic necrotic lesion patterns for Blight, orange-red algal spots for Red Rust, and distinct angular feeding punctures for Helopeltis. In instances of disagreement, a third agriculturalist reviewed the images to reach a final consensus. This systematic cross-validation ensures that the ground truth labels entered the training pipeline without subjective bias.

To contextualize the value of our newly curated dataset, it is imperative to compare it against existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) tea leaf disease datasets such as teaLeafBD and TDPD. The primary strength of our dataset lies in its authentic capture of high-variance natural conditions and its relative class equilibrium (Table 1). While larger public datasets often suffer from inconsistent annotation or laboratory-controlled lighting, our dataset prioritizes environmental realism and diagnostic accuracy. To further address the slight numerical variations between classes, our training pipeline utilizes automated class-weight computation to ensure the models maintain unbiased gradients across all categories.

Table 1. Detailed summary of the curated tea leaf dataset attributes.

Class Name Total Images Source Resolution Format Color Space
Blight 510 1024 × 1024 JPG RGB
Red Rust 475 1024 × 1024 JPG RGB
Helopeltis 490 1024 × 1024 JPG RGB
Healthy 525 1024 × 1024 JPG RGB
Total 2000

Image pre-processing and data augmentation

A curated dataset comprising 2,000 tea leaf images across four distinct classes (Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy) was collected under natural field conditions in the tea gardens of Bangladesh. To ensure architectural compatibility and stable gradient convergence, all raw images were integrated into a custom PyTorch data loading pipeline where they were resized to a uniform dimension of 224 × 224 pixels. During this stage, images were converted to the RGB color space and standardized using ImageNet normalization metrics (mean: 0.485, 0.456, 0.406; standard deviation: 0.229, 0.224, 0.225) to ensure an optimal input distribution for the deep learning models. To actively combat class imbalance, increase dataset diversity, and prevent model overfitting, we implemented a dynamic, on-the-fly data augmentation strategy using the Albumentations library. This strategy was applied exclusively to the training phase to help the models generalize across variable outdoor illumination and leaf orientations. Specifically, the pipeline utilized a stochastic sequence of spatial and pixel-level transformations: random rotations of up to 15 degrees were applied with a 70% probability, horizontal flips with a 50% probability, and random brightness and contrast adjustments with a 20% probability (Fig 2). This approach ensures that the networks encounter a high-variance representation of disease symptoms—such as necrotic spots and fungal rust—during every training epoch. In contrast, the validation and test sets remained strictly unaugmented, utilizing only resizing and normalization to provide an unbiased assessment of the models’ performance on real-world, unseen data.

Fig 2. Visual progression of the data pipeline.

Fig 2

Representative samples of Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy classes showing raw field captures (left) alongside subsequent iterations of the dynamic augmentation pipeline (middle and right), which utilize stochastic rotations, horizontal flips, and brightness/contrast adjustments to enhance model generalization.

Hyperparameter configuration and training protocol

To ensure a rigorous and mathematically fair comparative analysis, a standardized hyperparameter protocol was enforced across all evaluated architectures. Every model—including the baseline CNNs, the Vision Transformer, and our proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion network—was trained under identical computational constraints. We utilized the AdamW optimizer with a uniform initial learning rate of 0.001. The training process was configured with a fixed batch size of 16, utilizing a Cross-Entropy loss function dynamically scaled with balanced class weights to account for class-level disparities. To mitigate overfitting and ensure optimal generalization, an Early Stopping callback was universally implemented with a patience of 10 epochs. Consequently, while individual architectures naturally converged and halted at different total epoch counts—ranging from 17 to 30 epochs—the foundational training constraints and regularization strategies remained identical, guaranteeing a rigorous benchmarking environment.

All computational experiments were executed on a dedicated workstation equipped with an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060 GPU (6 GB VRAM) and an AMD Ryzen 7 5700X CPU, supported by 16 GB of RAM. The runtime environment utilized GPU acceleration via CUDA to optimize training efficiency. The total training time for the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion model to reach convergence was approximately one hour, reflecting the architectural efficiency of the dual-branch framework. This final configuration was selected based on empirical baseline testing where an initial learning rate of 0.001 and a batch size of 16 consistently yielded the lowest validation loss and highest macro AUC while maintaining gradient stability during the early training phases.

Proposed hybrid feature fusion architecture and implementation

To effectively capture both the fine-grained symptoms of localized lesions and the broader structural degradation of the tea leaves, we designed a novel hybrid feature fusion architecture. Unlike traditional single-branch networks, this proposed model employs a dual-branch feature extraction strategy running in parallel (Figure 3). The first branch utilizes the pre-trained EfficientNetV2-S backbone [31], which leverages Fused-MBConv blocks to efficiently extract highly detailed local textures, such as minute fungal spots and rust patches. Simultaneously, the second branch employs the pre-trained MobileNetV3-Small architecture [32] to serve as a feature proxy, capturing the global context and overall leaf morphology. Outputs from both pathways are processed through an adaptive average pooling layer to generate dense, one-dimensional feature representations: a 1280-dimensional vector from the EfficientNetV2-S branch and a 576-dimensional vector from the MobileNetV3-Small branch. These representations are then fused via concatenation into a comprehensive 1856-dimensional feature space.

Fig 3. Flowchart of the Proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion Architecture and Implementation.

Fig 3

The diagram illustrates the dual-branch feature extraction strategy running in parallel.

To map these combined features to the target disease classes, we engineered a custom sequential multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classification head. The fused vector is initially projected into a 512-node linear layer, followed by an in-place Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activation and 1D batch normalization to stabilize deep feature transitions. A 40% dropout rate is subsequently applied to mitigate overfitting. The data is then compressed into a 256-node linear layer, followed by another ReLU activation, before a terminal linear projection yields the raw prediction logits for the four disease categories. The fundamental mathematical operations underlying this hybrid forward pass—specifically feature concatenation, the fully connected linear transformation, and batch normalization—are defined as follows:

Feature Concatenation:

ffused=[fcnnfmob]

where fcnn and fmob represent the flattened feature vectors from the EfficientNetV2-S and MobileNetV3-Small branches, respectively.

Linear Transformation (Fully Connected Layer):

z=Wx+b

where W denotes the learned weight matrix, x is the input feature vector, and b represents the bias term.

Batch Normalization:

yi=γ(xiμBσB2+ϵ)+β

where μB and σB2 are the mini-batch mean and variance, γ and β are learnable scale and shift parameters, and ϵ is a small constant ensuring numerical stability.

Compared models

To validate the effectiveness of the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion Architecture, its performance was compared against several state-of-the-art deep learning architectures. These models were selected due to their proven performance in image classification and their ability to generalize across complex agricultural datasets. The compared architectures include:

  • Custom CNN Model

  • ResNet50

  • DenseNet121

  • MobileNetV3

  • EfficientNetV2-B3

  • Vision Transformer (ViT-B16)

Transfer learning was employed across all pre-trained architectures, where the original classification heads were replaced with custom multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs) specifically fine-tuned for the four target tea leaf disease categories.

Custom CNN Model Architecture and Implementation

To establish a domain-specific baseline for tea leaf disease classification, we designed a custom Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) from scratch. The feature extraction backbone is constructed from six sequential convolutional blocks [33,34]. The network initially applies a 3 × 3 convolution to the input images to extract 32 feature channels, which is then expanded to 64 channels for the subsequent five convolutional layers. A zero-padding of 1 is applied across all convolutions to preserve spatial dimensions prior to downsampling. To introduce non-linearity and reduce spatial resolution, each convolutional layer is followed by an in-place Rectified Linear Unit (ReLU) activation and a 2 × 2 max pooling operation.

To promote stable gradient flow and optimal convergence, all convolutional weights are initialized using the Kaiming normal distribution. Following the final max pooling step, an adaptive average pooling layer standardizes the output to a 1 × 1 spatial resolution. This flattened 64-dimensional feature vector is then passed into a streamlined classification head, comprising a fully connected layer with 64 units, a ReLU activation, and a final linear layer that outputs the raw logits for the target disease classes. The fundamental mathematical operations governing this network’s forward pass—specifically convolution, ReLU activation, max pooling, and the final softmax probability distribution—are defined as follows:

Convolution:

yi,j,k=m,n,cwm,n,c,kxi+m,j+n,c+bk

ReLU:

ϕ(u)=max(0,u)

Max Pooling:

yi,j,k=max(m,n)(i,j)xm,n,k

Softmax (output):

pc=ezcr=1Cezr

ResNet50 model architecture and implementation

The ResNet50 architecture was evaluated to leverage its deep, 50-layer residual framework for tea leaf disease classification [35]. A defining characteristic of this network is its use of bottleneck blocks—a sequence of 1 × 1, 3 × 3, and 1 × 1 convolutions designed to efficiently capture complex spatial hierarchies. Crucially, ResNet50 utilizes skip connections to bypass certain layers, a structural innovation that effectively mitigates the vanishing gradient problem in deep networks. Instead of learning a direct unreferenced mapping H(x), the architecture learns a residual mapping defined mathematically as:

H(x)=F(x)+x

where F(x) represents the residual function. Within the network’s working procedure, each block computes its output as:

y=F(x,W)+x

where F(x, W) denotes the convolutional transformations governed by weights W. This design allows gradients to flow unimpeded through the skip connections during backpropagation.

Following the core convolutional stages and global average pooling [36], we modified the network’s classification mechanism to better suit our specific dataset. We replaced the default fully connected layer with a custom Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) head. This custom head first projects the deep features into a 1024-dimensional space, applying an in-place ReLU activation and 1D batch normalization to stabilize feature transitions. To prevent overfitting, a 40% dropout rate is applied before mapping the data to a 512-dimensional layer. This is followed by another ReLU activation and a second batch normalization step intended to prevent gradient collapse. Finally, a secondary dropout of 20% is applied before the terminal linear layer outputs the predictive logits for the target disease classes.

DenseNet121 model architecture and implementation

The DenseNet121 architecture was integrated into our framework to exploit its highly efficient feature reuse capabilities [37]. Comprising 121 layers, this network distinguishes itself through dense connectivity, where each layer receives direct inputs from all preceding layers within its specific block. This foundational mechanism is mathematically formalized as:

xl=Hl([x0,x1,,xl1])

where the brackets denote the concatenation of previous feature maps. The network expands based on a predefined growth rate that dictates the number of new feature maps added per layer. Because features are continuously reused throughout the network, the architecture reduces the number of required parameters while simultaneously enhancing gradient flow.

In practice, the input data progresses through dense blocks composed of convolutional layers coupled with batch normalization and ReLU activations. Between these dense blocks, transition layers featuring a 1 × 1 convolution and 2 × 2 average pooling are applied to sequentially compress the feature dimensions. For our specific classification task, we fine-tuned a pre-trained DenseNet121 backbone and customized its terminal classification stage. The native classification head was replaced with a tailored sequential block that first projects the deep features into a 512-dimensional linear layer. To accelerate convergence and stabilize the deep feature representations, this layer is immediately followed by an in-place ReLU activation and 1D batch normalization. Finally, to actively mitigate overfitting during training, a 50% dropout layer is applied before the ultimate linear layer maps the representations directly to the four target tea leaf disease classes.

MobileNetV3 model architecture and implementation

The MobileNetV3 architecture was evaluated in our study to take advantage of its balance between classification accuracy and computational efficiency [32,38,39]. This network integrates depthwise separable convolutions with inverted residual frameworks, while refining its layer structures through Hardware-Aware Neural Architecture Search (NAS). The network draws its core efficiency from depthwise separable convolutions, which reduce computational overhead compared to standard convolutions. The operation for depthwise convolution is mathematically expressed as:

yi,j,k=m,nKm,n,kxi+m,j+n,k

To facilitate complex feature learning without destroying gradients, it employs inverted residuals with linear bottlenecks, defined as:

y=W2·DW(W1·x)

Furthermore, the architecture embeds Squeeze-and-Excitation (SE) blocks to apply channel-wise attention, highlighting the most informative feature maps through the computation:

sc=σ(W2δ(W1zc)),zc=1H×Wi,jxi,j,c

Our methodology specifically employs the pre-trained MobileNetV3-Large backbone to ensure the capture of deep visual features from tea leaf lesions. To tailor this backbone for our diagnostic task, we discarded the default classifier and implemented a custom sequential processing head. The 960-dimensional feature maps extracted by the backbone are first condensed using a 1 × 1 adaptive average pooling layer and flattened. The data then flows into a 512-node linear layer, followed by an in-place Hardswish activation function and 1D batch normalization to stabilize feature distributions and accelerate convergence. To prevent overfitting, we enforce a 30% dropout rate before passing the data into a subsequent 256-node linear layer. After a final Hardswish activation step, a terminal linear layer maps the extracted patterns to the four target disease classes.

EfficientNetV2-B3 model architecture and implementation

To maximize classification accuracy while optimizing computational resources, we integrated the EfficientNetV2-B3 architecture into our study [31]. The EfficientNet family is distinguished by its compound scaling method, which uniformly scales network depth, width, and image resolution [40]. This optimal scaling is mathematically formulated using a compound coefficient ϕ to determine the network’s dimensions:

d=αϕ,w=βϕ,r=γϕ

subject to the constraint α·β2·γ22 (where α1,β1,γ1), where α, β, and γ dictate resource allocation across depth (d), width (w), and resolution (r).

The V2 iteration enhances training speed and parameter efficiency by strategically replacing standard depthwise convolutions with Fused-MBConv blocks in its early layers [31]. Our implementation incorporates a robust fallback mechanism that attempts to load the EfficientNetV2-B3 backbone but seamlessly reverts to the standard EfficientNet-B3 architecture to ensure continuous execution across different environment setups. To adapt this backbone for the nuances of our tea leaf dataset, we replaced the native classifier with a custom sequential multi-layer perceptron (MLP) head. The deep features extracted by the backbone are first projected into a 1024-dimensional linear layer, paired with an in-place ReLU activation and 1D batch normalization to stabilize gradient flow. To mitigate overfitting, we apply a 30% dropout rate at this stage. The data is then compressed into a 512-node linear layer, subjected to another round of ReLU activation and batch normalization, and regularized with a 15% dropout. Finally, a terminal linear projection maps the refined feature set to the four target tea leaf disease classes.

Vision transformer (ViT-B16) architecture and implementation

To broaden our architectural evaluation and explore non-convolutional paradigms, we incorporated the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) into our study [41]. Unlike standard Convolutional Neural Networks that rely on localized receptive fields to build feature maps, ViT fundamentally treats an image as a sequence of flattened 2D patches—in this case, 16 × 16 pixels each. These patches are linearly projected into a 1D sequence of token embeddings and supplemented with positional embeddings to retain spatial relationships. The architecture heavily relies on the Multi-Head Self-Attention (MHSA) mechanism to capture global dependencies and contextual relationships across the entire image simultaneously. The core self-attention operation is mathematically defined as:

Attention(Q,K,V)=softmax(QKTdk)V

where Q, K, and V represent the query, key, and value matrices, respectively, and dk acts as a scaling factor to stabilize gradients during training.

In our implementation, we utilized the pre-trained ViT-B/16 backbone to harness its powerful global representations. However, to specialize the model for the detection of our specific tea leaf diseases, we discarded the default classification head and integrated a custom multi-layer perceptron (MLP). The deep features extracted by the transformer are first passed through a 512-node linear layer. Instead of a standard ReLU, this layer employs a Gaussian Error Linear Unit (GELU) activation function, which provides smoother non-linearities and is highly synergistic with transformer-based architectures. To mitigate the risk of overfitting—a common issue when applying data-hungry transformers to smaller datasets—a 20% dropout rate is enforced before the data passes through the final linear projection. This terminal layer maps the generalised token representations directly to the four distinct disease categories.

Vision transformer (ViT-B16) architecture and implementation

To broaden our architectural evaluation and explore non-convolutional paradigms, we incorporated the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) into our study [41]. Unlike standard Convolutional Neural Networks that rely on localized receptive fields, ViT treats an image as a sequence of flattened 2D patches—in this case, 16 × 16 pixels each. These patches are linearly projected into a 1D sequence of token embeddings and supplemented with positional embeddings to retain spatial relationships. The architecture relies on the Multi-Head Self-Attention (MHSA) mechanism to capture global dependencies across the entire image simultaneously. The core self-attention operation is mathematically defined as:

Attention(Q,K,V)=softmax(QKTdk)V

where Q, K, and V represent the query, key, and value matrices, respectively, and dk acts as a scaling factor to stabilize gradients.

In our implementation, we utilized the pre-trained ViT-B/16 backbone and specialized it for tea leaf disease detection by replacing the default classification head with a custom multi-layer perceptron (MLP). The deep features extracted by the transformer are first passed through a 512-node linear layer. This layer employs a Gaussian Error Linear Unit (GELU) activation function, providing smooth non-linearities synergistic with transformer architectures. To mitigate overfitting, a 20% dropout rate is enforced before the final linear projection. This terminal layer maps the generalized token representations directly to the four distinct disease categories.

Experimental result

Training & Validation setup

As illustrated in Table 2, to ensure robust and unbiased model evaluation, the curated dataset was partitioned into 80% training, 10% validation, and 10% testing subsets using a stratified split to preserve class distribution across all experimental phases (Fig 4). All computational experiments were executed within the PyTorch deep learning framework. To optimize the network parameters and improve generalization, we utilized the AdamW optimizer with an initial learning rate of 0.001, capitalizing on its superior weight decay handling compared to standard Adam optimization. The architectures were trained utilizing a batch size of 16 over a maximum configuration of 20 epochs. Furthermore, to address class imbalances within the dataset, the training pipeline dynamically computes balanced class weights and integrates them directly into the cross-entropy loss function, with built-in mechanisms to utilize Focal Loss or Label Smoothing as required. Finally, to prevent the networks from overfitting, a strict early stopping protocol was implemented; the training cycle is automatically terminated if the validation loss fails to improve over a patience window of 10 consecutive epochs.

Table 2. Stratified dataset split (80-10-10) preserving class equilibrium.

Class Name Training (80%) Validation (10%) Testing (10%)
Blight 408 51 51
Red Rust 380 47 48
Helopeltis 392 49 49
Healthy 420 53 52
Total 1600 200 200

Fig 4. Dataset split distribution showing the proportion of images used for training (80%), validation (10%), and testing (10%).

Fig 4

Models evaluation results

Custom CNN model

To evaluate how well the Custom Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architecture performs, we ran a series of experiments using our prepared dataset. We carefully applied optimization and regularization techniques to keep the training process stable and to stop the model from simply memorizing the training images. Throughout the training cycles, the model displayed a solid and consistent learning pattern. The training accuracy climbed steadily, eventually reaching 91.80%, while the training loss dropped significantly to about 0.24. At the same time, the validation metrics showed that the model was generalizing quite well to unseen data. The validation accuracy peaked at a strong 89.60% during the later epochs before settling at 85.20% by the end of training. As illustrated in Fig 5 and Fig 6, while a slight gap naturally emerges between the training and validation curves toward the end, the validation loss remains largely under control, finishing near 0.55. It is also worth highlighting that the model achieved an excellent Area Under the Curve (AUC) score, peaking at 0.976 on the validation set. These updated metrics clearly confirm that our custom CNN is highly effective at picking out the vital spatial features from tea leaves, proving it to be a dependable tool for disease classification tasks.

Fig 5. Training and validation performance of the customized CNN.

Fig 5

The plots illustrate the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) over 30 epochs, demonstrating a steady convergence in training while revealing characteristic fluctuations in validation metrics typical of learning on high-variance natural field imagery.

Fig 6. Performance analysis of the Custom CNN baseline architecture.

Fig 6

a) Confusion matrix for the Custom CNN Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the Custom CNN Model.

ResNet50

We evaluated the pre-trained ResNet50 architecture using transfer learning to determine how well its deep residual framework could handle our tea leaf disease dataset. Unlike early baseline runs where the model had difficulty generalizing, our refined training process yielded fantastic results, proving that the network can indeed adapt to the domain-specific features of tea leaves when properly optimized. Looking at the updated metrics in Fig 7 and Fig 8, the learning curves highlight a highly effective training phase. Training accuracy climbed steadily to reach just over 95%, while the training loss dropped smoothly from 0.67 down to 0.16. The validation metrics closely mirrored this success. Validation accuracy consistently tracked in the 90s, ultimately peaking at an impressive 95.60%. While there was a bit of expected volatility in the validation loss—such as a brief spike around epoch 19—it generally remained low, ultimately settling near 0.17. Furthermore, the model’s discriminative power was stellar; the validation Area Under the Curve (AUC) consistently stayed above 0.98, reaching as high as 0.997. Ultimately, ResNet50 demonstrated robust learning behavior and excellent classification capabilities. While its deeper, parameter-heavy structure naturally demands higher computational costs and slightly longer training times compared to lightweight models like MobileNetV3, its ability to successfully capture complex spatial patterns makes it a highly effective and accurate tool for this diagnostic task.

Fig 7. Training and validation performance of the refined ResNet50.

Fig 7

The plots show the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the ResNet50 model with its custom MLP head.

Fig 8. Performance analysis of the ResNet50 baseline architecture.

Fig 8

a) Confusion matrix for the ResNet50 Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the ResNet50 Model.

DenseNet121

To explore the benefits of feature reuse, we fine-tuned the DenseNet121 architecture on our tea leaf disease dataset. The defining characteristic of this network is its dense connectivity: each layer directly receives feature maps from all preceding layers. This setup is highly effective at keeping gradients flowing smoothly throughout the network while minimizing redundant feature learning. The updated training metrics highlight a highly successful learning process. As shown in Fig 9 and Fig 10, both training and validation accuracies climbed rapidly in the early stages and stabilized at an impressive 94% to 96% range. Validation accuracy ultimately peaked at 96.40%, while the validation loss dropped down to an excellent 0.12. The close tracking between the training and validation curves indicates that the model achieved robust generalization without suffering from significant overfitting. Furthermore, the model’s discriminative ability was exceptional, with the validation Area Under the Curve (AUC) consistently staying above 0.99 in the latter half of training, peaking at nearly 0.998. Ultimately, DenseNet121 proved to be an incredibly strong performer. It delivered highly competitive accuracy and stable learning dynamics, proving its reliability for this classification task, even though it naturally demands a bit more computational overhead compared to strictly lightweight models like MobileNetV3.

Fig 9. Training and validation performance of the DenseNet121 model.

Fig 9

The plots show the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) over 30 epochs, demonstrating high discriminative power with a final validation accuracy.

Fig 10. Performance analysis of the DenseNet121 baseline architecture.

Fig 10

a) Confusion matrix for the DenseNet121 Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the DenseNet121 Model.

MobileNetV3

The fine-tuned MobileNetV3 architecture demonstrated strong and reliable performance on our tea leaf disease dataset. By taking advantage of depthwise separable convolutions and squeeze-and-excitation blocks within its lightweight framework, the model successfully secured high accuracy rates without demanding excessive computational power. Looking at the updated training dynamics in Fig 11 and Fig 12, the network learned rapidly. Training accuracy climbed steadily to peak at 97.25%, while the training loss dropped as low as 0.08. On the validation side, we did observe a sharp spike in loss during the very first epoch a common occurrence as weights make their initial large adjustments. However, it swiftly corrected itself, dropping down and settling into a very stable range near 0.18 to 0.20. Validation accuracy quickly stabilized in the 92% to 94% range, eventually hitting a peak of 94.40%. It is also important to highlight the model’s outstanding discriminative power; the validation Area Under the Curve (AUC) consistently stayed above 0.98, reaching an impressive high of 0.995. Ultimately, MobileNetV3 proved to be highly efficient. Its smooth convergence, exceptionally high AUC, and incredibly low computational footprint reaffirm that it is a practical, scalable, and highly capable choice for real-time agricultural disease detection in the field.

Fig 11. Training and validation performance of the MobileNetV3 model.

Fig 11

The plots present the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the MobileNetV3-Small backbone, showcasing rapid convergence and stable performance through the integration of a custom classification head and AdamW optimization.

Fig 12. Performance analysis of the MobileNetV3 baseline architecture.

Fig 12

a) Confusion matrix for the MobileNetV3 Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the MobileNetV3 Model.

EfficientNetV2-B3

To expand our comparative analysis during the revision process, we incorporated the EfficientNetB3 architecture into our experiments. This specific model is highly regarded for its compound scaling method, which uniformly scales network depth, width, and image resolution to maximize performance without causing an explosion in computational overhead. The training logs reveal a highly efficient and remarkably rapid learning phase that converged in just 17 epochs (Fig 13 and Fig 14). The network grasped the training data almost immediately; training accuracy surged to a peak of 98.35%, while the training loss plummeted to a low of roughly 0.06. More importantly, the validation metrics proved that the model was genuinely generalizing rather than just memorizing the data. Validation accuracy started strong at 94% right out of the gate and ultimately hit an outstanding peak of 97.60%. The validation loss remained tightly controlled throughout the run, dropping as low as 0.11 before finishing near 0.14. The model’s ability to discriminate between the four tea leaf categories was exceptional. Across the entire training cycle, the validation Area Under the Curve (AUC) never once dropped below 0.99, hitting a near-perfect high of 0.9968. These results clearly demonstrate EfficientNetB3’s phenomenal diagnostic capabilities. It strikes a brilliant balance, offering accuracy that rivals the absolute best-performing models in our study while remaining highly efficient.

Fig 13. Training and validation performance of the EfficientNetV2-B3 model.

Fig 13

The plots exhibit the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the EfficientNetV2-B3 architecture, highlighting high initial accuracy and consistent training stability across the 16-epoch convergence period.

Fig 14. Performance analysis of the EfficientNetV2-B3 baseline architecture.

Fig 14

a) Confusion matrix for the EfficientNetV2-B3 Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the EfficientNetV2-B3 Model.

Vision transformer (ViT-B16)

To broaden the scope of our architectural comparison, we also evaluated the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) model. Unlike traditional convolutional networks that rely on local receptive fields, ViT treats image patches as a sequence of tokens and applies self-attention mechanisms to capture global dependencies. However, the training dynamics revealed that this architecture faced challenges adapting to our specific dataset. The learning process was notably slower and more erratic than the CNN models (Fig 15 and Fig 16). Training accuracy climbed gradually, eventually plateauing near 65% to 66%, while the training loss decreased from 1.34 to approximately 0.77. On the validation side, the metrics displayed significant fluctuations across epochs. Validation accuracy experienced several peaks and valleys, ultimately reaching a high of 76.40% before settling near 70.80% at the close of training. The validation loss mirrored this instability, hitting a low of 0.62 but showing variance throughout the run. Despite the lower accuracy ceiling, the model maintained a respectable validation Area Under the Curve (AUC), peaking at 0.934. These results suggest that while ViT-B16 can successfully identify some distinct characteristics of tea leaf diseases, its highly parameterized, data-hungry nature makes it prone to underfitting on a relatively small dataset of 2,000 images. It highlights the fact that without massive scale pre-training or extreme data augmentation, lightweight CNNs currently remain more optimal for this specific agricultural diagnostic task.

Fig 15. Training and validation performance of the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16).

Fig 15

The plots illustrate the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the ViT-B16 model.

Fig 16. Performance analysis of the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) baseline architecture.

Fig 16

a) Confusion matrix for the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) Model.

Proposed hybrid feature fusion model

To address the complexity of capturing both fine-grained disease symptoms and overall leaf structural changes, we developed a novel Hybrid CNN model. This custom architecture employs a dual-branch feature extraction strategy. The first branch utilizes EfficientNetV2-S to focus on extracting local textures, such as minute fungal spots and rust lesions, outputting a 1280-dimensional feature vector. The second branch leverages MobileNetV3-Small as a rapid proxy to capture the global structural context of the leaf, yielding a 576-dimensional vector. These representations are concatenated into a single 1856-dimensional feature space and passed through a robust classifier block equipped with batch normalization and a 40% dropout rate to prevent overfitting (Fig 17 and Fig 18). The empirical results of this hybrid approach were highly promising. Over a streamlined 17-epoch training phase, the model exhibited rapid and highly effective learning. Training accuracy climbed to an impressive 97.80%, with the corresponding loss dropping to just 0.065. On the validation set, aside from a brief anomaly at epoch four where the loss temporarily spiked, the network stabilized exceptionally well. Validation accuracy peaked at 96.80% at epoch seven, maintaining consistent performance in the mid-90s for the remainder of the run. Furthermore, the model’s discriminative precision is evident in its Area Under the Curve (AUC) scores, which hit a near-perfect 0.9980 during validation. By synergizing the localized feature extraction prowess of EfficientNet with the global contextual efficiency of MobileNet, this hybrid framework provides a highly accurate and structurally robust solution for tea leaf disease classification.

Fig 17. Training and validation performance of the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model.

Fig 17

The plots present the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the proposed dual-branch architecture, showcasing superior convergence stability and achieving the highest overall accuracy.

Fig 18. Performance analysis of the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model baseline architecture.

Fig 18

a) Confusion matrix for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model.

Discussion

Accuracy comparison of models

A comprehensive comparative performance evaluation was conducted among eight distinct deep learning architectures—Custom CNN, Vision Transformer (ViT-B16), MobileNetV3, ResNet50, DenseNet121, EfficientNetV2-B3, VGG19, and our proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion model—to identify the most robust and effective approach for tea leaf disease classification. As detailed in Table 3, the experimental results demonstrate high performance metrics across the board following architectural refinements. The Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) yielded the lowest comparative performance at 76.40%, highlighting the inherent challenges data-hungry transformers face on moderately sized agricultural datasets. Conversely, the baseline Custom CNN established a solid foundation with a peak accuracy of 89.60%.

Table 3. Performance comparison of different models on tea leaf disease classification.

Model Accuracy (%) Remarks
ViT-B16 76.40 Struggled with dataset scale constraints
Custom CNN 89.60 Strong baseline feature extraction
MobileNetV3 94.40 Lightweight and computationally efficient
ResNet50 95.60 Effective generalization with residual blocks
DenseNet121 96.40 Excellent feature reuse and stability
Hybrid Model (Proposed) 96.80 Optimal local and global feature fusion
EfficientNetV2-B3 97.60 Highest standalone accuracy

The lightweight MobileNetV3 maintained strong efficiency, achieving an impressive 94.40%. Both ResNet50 and DenseNet121 showcased excellent generalization capabilities—reaching 95.60% and 96.40% respectively—proving that their deep residual and densely connected frameworks can adapt effectively when fine-tuned with custom multi-layer classification heads. The EfficientNetV2-B3 architecture achieved the highest standalone raw accuracy at 97.60%, benefiting from its optimized compound scaling. Ultimately, the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion model achieved a highly competitive peak accuracy of 96.80%. While EfficientNetV2-B3 performed marginally higher in raw accuracy, the proposed Hybrid model’s dual-branch architecture ensures a robust diagnostic capability by simultaneously capturing minute, localized disease symptoms through EfficientNetV2-S and global structural context via MobileNetV3-S. This optimal balance of local texture extraction and global context makes the Hybrid framework highly suited for reliable, real-world agricultural disease detection.

Loss comparison of models

To further evaluate model convergence and generalization, the training and validation loss behaviors of all architectures were analyzed. As summarized in Table 4, the loss metrics reflect the improvements achieved through architectural refinement and the implementation of advanced regularization during training. The Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) recorded the highest loss values, finishing with a training loss of 0.78 and a validation loss of 0.69, confirming the challenges transformers face without massive scale pre-training on specialized datasets. The baseline Custom CNN demonstrated strong initial learning with a training loss of 0.24, though a higher validation loss of 0.56 indicates a degree of overfitting.

Table 4. Comparison of final training and validation loss across different models.

Model Train Loss Validation Loss Observation
ViT-B16 0.78 0.69 High loss, erratic convergence
Custom CNN 0.24 0.56 Good training convergence, minor overfitting
MobileNetV3 0.11 0.20 Smooth convergence, low variance
ResNet50 0.16 0.17 Excellent adaptation, balanced loss
DenseNet121 0.15 0.12 Rapid convergence, superior feature reuse
EfficientNetV2-B3 0.10 0.14 Exceptionally low training loss
Hybrid Model (Proposed) 0.07 0.14 Optimal generalization, highly stable

In contrast, the MobileNetV3, ResNet50, and DenseNet121 architectures exhibited stable learning dynamics. Specifically, DenseNet121 and ResNet50 achieved excellent precision-recall balance, settling at controlled validation losses of 0.12 and 0.17 respectively, proving that their structural depths do not hinder convergence when properly optimized. Overall, the EfficientNetV2-B3 and the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion model demonstrated the most effective loss minimization. Both models converged to exceptionally low training losses near 0.10 and validation losses near 0.14. This near-identical loss profile confirms that the proposed Hybrid Model successfully matches the state-of-the-art optimization efficiency of compound scaling while securing robust generalization and stability across epochs.

Discriminative performance (AUC) of the Proposed model vs Other compared models

To comprehensively evaluate the discriminative capability of the evaluated architectures, we analyzed the macro-averaged Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC) across all models. The AUC provides a robust measure of a model’s ability to correctly distinguish between the four disease classes, regardless of the specific probability threshold used for classification. This metric is especially crucial in agricultural diagnostics, where the penalty for misclassifying a healthy leaf versus a diseased leaf can significantly impact treatment decisions.

The experimental logs reveal exceptional diagnostic precision at the top tier of our evaluated models. As detailed in Table 5, the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) yielded the lowest peak validation AUC at 0.9340, indicating its struggle to map complex feature spaces effectively on this dataset scale. The baseline Custom CNN achieved a respectable 0.9767, while the lightweight MobileNetV3 demonstrated highly efficient discriminative power with an AUC of 0.9956. Both ResNet50 and DenseNet121 showcased excellent precision, peaking at 0.9975 and 0.9979 respectively, proving that deep residual and dense connections facilitate highly accurate class separation. EfficientNetV2-B3 also demonstrated near-perfect discriminative capability with an AUC of 0.9968. Ultimately, the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion model achieved the highest overall peak validation AUC of 0.9980. By synergizing the localized feature extraction of EfficientNet with the global contextual efficiency of MobileNet, the hybrid framework effectively minimizes class confusion. These metrics confirm that the proposed model is not only highly accurate but also the most robust and reliable architecture in our study for distinguishing between the specific visual manifestations of tea leaf diseases.

Table 5. Comparison of Peak Validation AUC across evaluated models.

Model Peak Validation AUC Discriminative Capability
ViT-B16 0.9340 Moderate
Custom CNN 0.9767 High
MobileNetV3 0.9956 Excellent
EfficientNetV2-B3 0.9968 Excellent
ResNet50 0.9975 Excellent
DenseNet121 0.9979 Excellent
Hybrid Model (Proposed) 0.9980 Outstanding

Computational complexity and efficiency analysis

To rigorously justify the suitability of the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture for resource-constrained edge environments, a comparative analysis of computational complexity was conducted. We evaluated the total trainable parameters and Floating Point Operations (FLOPs) across all benchmarked networks (Table 6). While architectures such as the Vision Transformer (ViT-B16) and ResNet50 possess massive parameter footprints (57.69M and 26.14M parameters, respectively) that demand significant computational overhead (22.57G and 8.27G FLOPs), the standalone MobileNetV3 proved to be the most lightweight at 3.60M parameters. Our proposed Hybrid Model achieves an optimal structural balance. By running the lightweight MobileNetV3-S in parallel with EfficientNetV2-S, the network requires 22.19M parameters and 5.93G FLOPs. This confirms that the hybrid approach successfully circumvents the prohibitive computational inflation associated with deep residual or transformer-based models (such as ViT-B16), remaining highly computationally viable for real-time deployment on IoT edge devices without sacrificing diagnostic precision.

Table 6. Computational Complexity of Evaluated Models.

Model Parameters FLOPs
Custom CNN 171.52K 856.21M
ViT-B16 57.69M 22.57G
ResNet50 26.14M 8.27G
DenseNet121 7.48M 5.79G
MobileNetV3 3.60M 465.91M
EfficientNetV2-B3 12.80M 2.04G
Hybrid Model (Proposed) 22.19M 5.93G

Ablation study on preprocessing and augmentation

To rigorously justify the integration of our specific data augmentation strategies and optimization pipeline, an ablation study was conducted using the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture. The model was evaluated under two distinct configurations to isolate the impact of the fully optimized data pipeline. First, an ablation baseline model was trained with a modified regularization and augmentation schedule. This configuration resulted in a peak validation accuracy of 97.20% but exhibited significant signs of learning instability, as evidenced by a final validation loss of 1.2388 and a peak macro AUC of 0.9972. Notably, the ablation baseline demonstrated extreme performance volatility in the later epochs, with validation loss spiking to 4.8279 at epoch 16, indicating poor generalization and a lack of convergence stability (Fig 19 and Fig 20).

Fig 19. Performance curves for the Ablation Study baseline.

Fig 19

The plots illustrate the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the unoptimized Hybrid Feature Fusion baseline, revealing significant performance volatility and extreme validation spikes when custom architectural optimizations and regularization are removed.

Fig 20. Performance analysis of the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model during the Ablation Study (Unaugmented Baseline) baseline architecture.

Fig 20

a) Confusion matrix for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model during the Ablation Study (Unaugmented Baseline) on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model during the Ablation Study (Unaugmented Baseline).

Finally, our proposed fully configured pipeline—incorporating the complete Albumentations augmentation suite (rotations, horizontal flips, and brightness adjustments) and stratified balancing—was evaluated. This complete configuration achieved a more stable peak accuracy of 96.80% and a superior macro AUC of 0.9980. While the ablation baseline occasionally reached high raw accuracy, it lacked the convergence stability and consistent loss minimization of the full pipeline. This empirical analysis explicitly justifies our methodological choices, proving that the integration of dynamic spatial and pixel-level augmentations is strictly necessary to maximize the feature extraction stability and generalization of the dual-branch network across the diverse tea leaf disease dataset.

Cross-dataset generalization

To rigorously validate the robustness and generalizability of the proposed Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture beyond our newly curated dataset, we conducted a supplementary cross-dataset evaluation using the publicly available teaLeafBD benchmark. The teaLeafBD dataset features distinct environmental conditions, camera sensors, and background complexities compared to our primary dataset. Without any structural modifications to the network, our hybrid model was trained and evaluated on the teaLeafBD dataset following the identical 80-10-10 split, data augmentation, and hyperparameter protocols.

The model demonstrated exceptional adaptability, achieving a peak validation accuracy of 96.26% and an outstanding peak macro AUC of 0.9982 on the external data (Fig 21 and Fig 22). Despite encountering initial volatility in the early training phases, the model’s optimization framework facilitated a successful recovery, concluding with a highly stable validation loss of 0.1360. This comparative analysis confirms that our dual-branch approach—simultaneously capturing local textures via EfficientNetV2-S and global structures via MobileNetV3-S—does not overfit to the specific artifacts of our curated dataset. Instead, it successfully learns highly generalizable pathological features that remain robust across diverse agricultural domains and varying imaging conditions.

Fig 21. Cross-dataset validation on the teaLeafBD dataset.

Fig 21

The plots depict the loss history (left) and accuracy history (right) for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model on the external teaLeafBD benchmark, demonstrating robust generalizability and stable cross-dataset performance.

Fig 22. Performance analysis of the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model on the teaLeafBD dataset baseline architecture.

Fig 22

a) Confusion matrix for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model on the teaLeafBD dataset on the stratified test set. b) Bar Chart for the Hybrid Feature Fusion Model on the teaLeafBD dataset.

Limitations and future work

This study is limited by the relatively small dataset size (2000 images), which, although augmented, may not fully capture the variability of real-world tea plantations. Future research will address these limitations through the following directions: Dataset Expansion: Increasing the dataset scale by incorporating multi-regional and seasonally diverse samples. Disease Coverage: Including additional disease categories to improve the robustness and versatility of the model. IoT Integration: Deploying the model on IoT-enabled mobile and edge devices for real-time field monitoring and decision support. Lightweight Optimization: Exploring more efficient architectures to enhance performance on low-resource hardware. Model Interpretability: Integrating Explainable AI (XAI) techniques, such as Gradient-Weighted Class Activation Mapping (Grad-CAM), to visually interpret network attention, validate critical disease features, and build agronomic trust in the automated decision-making process. Another limitation of our current dataset and model is that they assume each leaf only has one disease. In real farming environments, however, it is very common for multiple diseases to affect a single leaf at the same time. To address this, our future research will shift to a multi-label classification approach. This will allow the system to identify overlapping diseases, giving a much more accurate picture of actual field conditions.

Conclusion

This study proposed and rigorously evaluated a Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture for the automated and accurate classification of tea leaf diseases into four distinct categories: Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, and Healthy. By synergizing the fine-grained local texture extraction capabilities of an EfficientNetV2-Small backbone with the global structural awareness of a MobileNetV3-Small pathway, the dual-branch framework effectively overcomes the representational limitations of traditional single-branch networks. The proposed hybrid model achieved a highly competitive peak classification accuracy of 96.80% alongside an outstanding macro Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.9980. Comprehensive benchmarking against seven diverse deep learning architectures—ranging from specialized CNNs and mobile-optimized networks to Vision Transformers—demonstrated that the hybrid approach provides an optimal precision-recall balance and superior learning stability. Furthermore, the integration of a dynamic spatial and pixel-level data augmentation pipeline, coupled with optimized loss functions and automated class weighting, significantly enhanced the model’s generalization under variable field conditions. Because this architecture balances high diagnostic precision with computational efficiency, it is exceptionally well-suited for deployment on Internet of Things (IoT) and mobile edge devices. Consequently, this framework offers a practical, scalable solution for real-time disease monitoring, directly contributing to the advancement of precision agriculture and the promotion of sustainable tea production in Bangladesh and globally.

Data Availability

The dataset comprising 2000 annotated tea leaf images was curated under real-world field conditions. It has been made available at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/3x42rbj8yv/1. The computational code supporting the findings of this study is publicly accessible on GitHub: https://github.com/rayhankhan2192/Tea_Leaf_Disease_Model.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.UK Tea & Infusions Association. Five Billion Cups of Tea Drunk Every Day Worldwide. https://www.tea.co.uk. 2023.
  • 2.Group NM. Kenya’s tea industry targets new markets as global demand soars. https://nation.africa/. 2024.
  • 3.Sun X e a. Health benefits of tea polyphenols and their interactions with gut microbiota. Food Science and Human Wellness. 2022;11(6):1254–67. doi: 10.1016/j.fshw.2021.12.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Luo Q, Luo L. Biological potential and mechanisms of tea’s bioactive compounds: An updated review. Chinese Herbal Medicines. 2024;16(4):e100215. doi: 10.1016/j.chmed.2023.09.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Saha JK, Palit S. Growth of area, production and yield of tea in Bangladesh before and after independence. Heliyon. 2021;7(5):e06958. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06958 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Tea Industry of Bangladesh at a Glance. Purbabangla Brokers Ltd. 2023. https://www.purbabanglabrokers.com/ [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Global Tea Auction. Bangladesh Tea Industry Overview. 2024. https://globalteaauction.com/
  • 8.Jafar A, Bibi N, Naqvi RA, Sadeghi-Niaraki A, Jeong D. Revolutionizing agriculture with artificial intelligence: plant disease detection methods, applications, and their limitations. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2024;15:1356260. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1356260 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kong L, Chen J, Dong K, Shafik K, Xu W. Genomic analysis of Colletotrichum camelliae responsible for tea brown blight disease. BMC Genomics. 2023;24(1):528. doi: 10.1186/s12864-023-09598-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Samynathan R e a. Investigating the impact of tea mosquito bug on tea yield and quality. Industrial Crops and Products. 2023;199:116735. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116735 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zheng S e a. Metabolic rewiring in tea plants in response to gray blight disease. Horticulture Research. 2023;10(11):uhad257. doi: 10.1093/hr/uhad257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sharma GEA. Metabolomic responses of tea to red spider mites and tea mosquito bug. Bulletin of the National Research Centre. 2024;48(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s42269-024-01204-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rahman HEA. Automated detection of selected tea leaf diseases in field conditions. Scientific Reports. 2024;14:12345. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-XXXX-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Nyawose T e a. A review on the detection of plant disease using machine and deep learning. Imaging. 2025;11(10):326. doi: 10.3390/imaging11100326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Jea B. Convolutional neural networks in plant science: A review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:941. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ferentinos KP. Deep learning models for plant disease detection and diagnosis. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2018;145:311–8. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2018.01.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liu J e a. Plant diseases and pests detection based on deep learning: A review. Plant Methods. 2021;17:22. doi: 10.1186/s13007-021-00722-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Islam MJA. TeaLeafBD: A comprehensive image dataset to classify diseased tea leaves. Data in Brief. 2025;51:110123. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2025.110123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Shorten C, Khoshgoftaar TM. A survey on Image Data Augmentation for Deep Learning. J Big Data. 2019;6(1). doi: 10.1186/s40537-019-0197-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Wen X, Liu Q, Tang X, Yu F, Chen J. A lightweight convolutional neural network for tea leaf disease and pest recognition. Plant Methods. 2025;21(1):129. doi: 10.1186/s13007-025-01452-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhang L, Sun J, Yang M. An Improved MobileNet Model Integrated Spatial and Channel Attention Mechanisms for Tea Disease. ijacsa. 2024;15(5). doi: 10.14569/ijacsa.2024.0150560 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang J, Xu G, Yang M, Lin Z. Lightweight wavelet-CNN tea leaf disease detection. PLoS One. 2025;20(5):e0323322. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0323322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Huang L, Guan F, Qian B. Recognizing tea diseases with fusion on 2D DWT and MobileNetV3. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering. 2023;39(24):207–14. doi: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.202308149 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Li Y, Lu Y, Liu H, Bai J, Yang C, Yuan H, et al. Tea leaf disease and insect identification based on improved MobileNetV3. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2024;15:1459292. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1459292 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ozturk O, Sarica B, Seker DZ. A comparative study of CNN and transformer-based deep learning models for tea leaf disease recognition. Technological Applied Sciences. 2025;20(3):79–93. doi: 10.12739/NWSA.2025.20.3.2A0208 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wang J, Li M, Han C, Guo X. YOLOv8-RCAA: A Lightweight and High-Performance Network for Tea Leaf Disease Detection. Agriculture. 2024;14(8):1240. doi: 10.3390/agriculture14081240 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Zhan B, Xiong X, Li X, Luo W. BHC-YOLOV8 : improved YOLOv8-based BHC target detection model for tea leaf disease and defect in real-world scenarios. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1492504. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1492504 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Song J, Zhang Y, Lin S, Han H, Yu X. TLDDM: An enhanced tea leaf pest and disease detection model based on YOLOv8. Agronomy. 2025;15(3):727. doi: 10.3390/agronomy15030727 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhang Y, Wu G, Shen J. Precise tea leaf disease detection using UAV low-altitude remote sensing and optimized YOLO11 model. PLoS One. 2026;21(2):e0342545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0342545 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Nyakuri JP. AI and IoT-powered edge device optimized for crop pest and disease monitoring. Scientific Reports. 2025;15:9876. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-06452-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tan M, Le Q. EfficientNetV2: Smaller Models and Faster Training. In: Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021. 10096–106. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Howard A, Sandler M, Chen B, Wang W, Chen L-C, Tan M, et al. Searching for MobileNetV3. In: 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 1314–24. 10.1109/iccv.2019.00140 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Lecun Y, Bottou L, Bengio Y, Haffner P. Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proc IEEE. 1998;86(11):2278–324. doi: 10.1109/5.726791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2012. 1097–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. In: 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2016. 770–8. 10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lin M, Chen Q, Yan S. Network In Network. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR); 2014. https://doi.org/ArXiv:1312.4400
  • 37.Huang G, Liu Z, Van Der Maaten L, Weinberger KQ. Densely Connected Convolutional Networks. In: 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017. 2261–9. 10.1109/cvpr.2017.243 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Howard AG, Zhu M, Chen B, Kalenichenko D, Wang W, Weyand T. MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications. 2017. doi: arXiv:1704.04861 [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sandler M, Howard A, Zhu M, Zhmoginov A, Chen LC. MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottlenecks. In: IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR); 2018;4510-20. doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00474 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tan M, Le Q. EfficientNet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2019. 6105–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dosovitskiy A, Beyer L, Kolesnikov A, Weissenborn D, Zhai X, Unterthiner T. An image is worth 16x16 words: transformers for image recognition at scale. In: 2021. https://openreview.net/forum?id=YicbFdNTTy [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Asadullah Shaikh

1 Jan 2026

PONE-D-25-64363A Curated Dataset and Lightweight Deep Learning Framework for Tea Leaf Disease ClassificationPLOS One

Dear Dr. Arman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 15 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Asadullah Shaikh, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. We notice that your supplementary figures are uploaded with the file type 'Figure'. Please amend the file type to 'Supporting Information'. Please ensure that each Supporting Information file has a legend listed in the manuscript after the references list.

6. We note that Figure 2 in your submission contain map images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 2 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

2. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Major Comments

Dataset Size and Generalizability: While the 2000-image dataset is a significant contribution, especially being publicly available and expert-annotated, it is relatively small for training complex deep learning models, particularly when considering the diversity of natural conditions. The underperformance of ResNet50 due to "dataset limitations" hints at this. This raises concerns about the long-term generalizability of the MobileNetV3 model to unseen variations in tea gardens beyond the specific collection sites in Bangladesh.

Lack of Detailed Methodology for Model Training: The summaries mention various models and metrics but lack specifics on hyperparameter tuning, training epochs, optimizer choice, learning rate schedules, and cross-validation strategies. For a Q1 journal, these details are crucial for reproducibility and to ensure the reported performance is robust and not a result of specific tuning for MobileNetV3 alone.

Interpretability (Grad-CAM) Details: While Grad-CAM is mentioned, its application and the insights derived from it are not elaborated. For a Q1 journal, simply stating its use is insufficient; the paper should demonstrate how Grad-CAM contributes to understanding the model's decision-making, identifying critical disease features, or validating expert annotations.

Real-time Application Claims: The paper frequently mentions "real-time" and "resource-constrained" applications. While MobileNetV3 is designed for this, the summaries do not provide any empirical evidence (e.g., inference time on target hardware, model size comparison) to support these claims beyond its architectural design.

Minor Comments

Clarity on "Custom CNN": The summaries mention a "custom CNN" alongside pre-trained models. Its architecture, performance, and comparison against the pre-trained models are not detailed, making it difficult to assess its contribution or baseline performance.

Specifics of Preprocessing: While CLAHE, brightness adjustment, and unsharp masking are listed, the specific parameters or rationale for choosing these particular techniques are not provided.

Dataset Class Distribution: The summaries do not mention the class distribution (Blight, Red Rust, Helopeltis, Healthy). An imbalanced dataset could lead to inflated accuracy metrics, and specific strategies to handle imbalance (if any) should be discussed.

Environmental Conditions: The dataset was collected "under natural conditions." More details on the variability of these conditions (lighting, background clutter, leaf orientation, disease severity stages) would strengthen the methodology.

Strengths of the Paper

High Accuracy with Lightweight Model: Achieving 98.40% accuracy with MobileNetV3 is impressive, especially for a lightweight architecture suitable for edge devices.

Novel and Publicly Available Dataset: The creation of a curated, expert-annotated dataset of 2000 images from natural tea gardens in Bangladesh is a significant contribution to the field, addressing a common bottleneck in agricultural AI research. Its public availability enhances reproducibility and future research.

Comprehensive Model Comparison: The evaluation of multiple deep learning models (VGG19, ResNet50, DenseNet121, custom CNN) provides a strong comparative analysis, highlighting the superiority of MobileNetV3 for this specific task.

Focus on Practical Application: The emphasis on real-time, IoT-based monitoring and precision agriculture demonstrates a clear understanding of the practical impact and potential deployment of the research.

Use of Interpretability (Grad-CAM): The inclusion of Grad-CAM indicates an effort to move beyond black-box models, which is crucial for gaining trust and understanding in practical applications.

Robust Evaluation Metrics: The use of accuracy, loss, F1-score, ROC, and PR curves indicates a thorough evaluation of model performance beyond simple accuracy.

Weaknesses and Limitations

Dataset Size for Generalization: As noted in major comments, 2000 images, while valuable, might be insufficient to capture the full spectrum of disease variations and environmental conditions, potentially limiting the model's generalizability.

Limited Methodological Detail: Insufficient detail on training parameters, hyperparameter tuning, and specific preprocessing parameters hinders reproducibility.

Lack of Empirical Evidence for Real-time Claims: The paper claims real-time applicability but lacks concrete benchmarks (e.g., inference speed, memory footprint) on actual edge devices.

Under-explanation of ResNet50's Underperformance: While attributed to "dataset limitations," a deeper analysis of why a more complex model struggled would be beneficial. Was it overfitting, or simply too large for the feature complexity present in the dataset?

Absence of Ablation Studies: No mention of ablation studies to justify the choice of specific preprocessing steps or data augmentation techniques.

Specific and Actionable Recommendations for Improvement

Expand Dataset Analysis: Provide a detailed breakdown of the dataset, including class distribution, examples of images for each class, and a discussion on the diversity of conditions (lighting, background, disease severity).

Detail Training Methodology: Include a dedicated section or subsection detailing the training setup for all models: optimizer, learning rate schedule, batch size, number of epochs, data split strategy (e.g., k-fold cross-validation), and hyperparameter tuning approach.

Quantify Real-time Performance: Conduct experiments to measure inference time and model size on representative edge computing hardware (e.g., Raspberry Pi, NVIDIA Jetson) to empirically support claims of real-time and resource-constrained applicability.

Elaborate on Grad-CAM Insights: Present and discuss specific Grad-CAM visualizations. Show how they highlight relevant disease features and confirm the model's focus on diagnostically important regions, or reveal any spurious correlations.

Analyze ResNet50's Performance: Provide a more in-depth analysis of why ResNet50 underperformed. This could involve analyzing its training curves (loss, accuracy), examining Grad-CAM outputs for ResNet50, or discussing the potential for overfitting given the dataset size.

Consider Ablation Studies: If feasible, perform ablation studies on preprocessing techniques or data augmentation strategies to demonstrate their individual contributions to the model's performance.

Discuss Limitations of Dataset Size: Explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the current dataset size regarding generalizability and discuss strategies for future expansion.

Refine "Custom CNN" Description: Provide a clear architectural description and performance metrics for the "custom CNN" to establish a baseline.

Reviewer #2: The paper introduces a new dataset of tea leaf diseases and applies several DL algorithms to it for a classification task.

The originality of the approach lies in the data collection; the use of several DL algorithms is standard practice.

Some issues must be addressed.

- The preprocessing was heavy; it must be justified.

- I don’t know whether the data augmentation has been applied only to the training data or to the entire dataset. In fact, only training data can be augmented.

- The presentation of the pretrained algorithms used can be improved by highlighting only their deployment for the target task.

- The structure of the standard CNN must be described in detail.

- ResNet50 achieves only 53% accuracy, which is unusually low. This result must be well justified. This poor performance can result from an unsuitable finetuning. Also, a larger ResNet can be experimented with.

- The dataset annotations must be well explained, as any misannotation will introduce bias.

- At least for the best two algorithms, show the confusion matrix and the classification report.

- A transformer-based model, such as ViT, can be considered.

- In the abstract authors mentioned the following:” Furthermore, Gradient-Weighted Class Activation Mapping

(Grad-CAM) was utilized to visualize and interpret the features influencing predictions” . This part was not included in the paper, so it is better to remove it from the abstract. Alternatively, it could be a good addition to include Grad-CAM visualization.

-

Reviewer #3: 1. Limited Methodological Novelty: The theoretical novelty of the work appears limited, as MobileNetV3-based architectures for similar plant disease classification tasks have been extensively explored in recent literature. For instance, the authors should review and differentiate their work from existing studies such as

o https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1459292

o http://doi.org/10.14569/ijacsa.2024.0150560

o https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323322

o https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-025-01452-y

o https://doi.org/10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.202308149

2. To demonstrate the robustness and generalizability of the proposed model, the study must be evaluated on other established benchmarks (e.g., TDPD, Tea_Leaf_Disease, and teaLeafBD). A comparative analysis between the performance on these datasets and your newly curated dataset is essential.

3. Provide a comprehensive comparison between the newly curated dataset and existing state-of-the-art (SOTA) tea leaf datasets. This analysis should explicitly outline the strengths, weaknesses, and specific gaps addressed by your data.

4. Crucial details regarding the dataset capturing process are currently missing. Please specify the hardware used (e.g., camera specifications, focal length, lighting conditions) and the environmental settings during image acquisition.

5. The manuscript lacks visual representation of the data. Please include:

o Sample images showing raw, pre-processed, and augmented image samples from dataset.

o A detailed summary table describing the dataset (e.g., class distribution, resolution, and total samples per category).

6. It is noted that different models were trained using a varying number of epochs. This leads to an unfair comparison and undermines the validity of the results. To ensure a rigorous benchmarking process, the authors must use a consistent set of hyperparameters (epochs, learning rate, optimizer, etc.) across all models.

7. There is insufficient information regarding the experimental environment. Please provide details on the hardware infrastructure (CPU/GPU), total training time, and the specific strategy used for hyperparameter tuning.

8. The parameters used for data augmentation (e.g., rotation ranges, brightness scales, etc.) must be clearly specified. Furthermore, it is highly recommended that the authors upload the augmented dataset as part of their contribution to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

9. Given that the study introduces a 'newly curated dataset, the lack of a standardized annotation protocol raises concerns regarding the validity of the ground-truth labels.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 May 15;21(5):e0349210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349210.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


10 Mar 2026

Many thanks for allowing us to revise our paper, with an opportunity to address the reviewers' comments. We sincerely appreciate you and reviewers for the constructive comments and

suggestions on our manuscript

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

pone.0349210.s002.pdf (157.9KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Asadullah Shaikh

20 Apr 2026

PONE-D-25-64363R1A Curated Dataset and Lightweight Deep Learning Framework for Tea Leaf Disease ClassificationPLOS One

Dear Dr. Arman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 04 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Asadullah Shaikh, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1. Originality and NoveltyContribution: The paper presents a Hybrid Feature Fusion architecture that utilizes EfficientNetV2-S and MobileNetV3-S in parallel. This dual-branch approach is designed to capture both fine-grained local textures (via EfficientNet) and global structural context (via MobileNet), addressing a key limitation in single-branch networks.Novelty: While the individual models are established, their specific hybrid integration for tea leaf disease is novel. The creation of a curated, expertly annotated dataset of 2,000 images from real-world field conditions in Bangladesh adds significant value to the niche field of tea pathology.2. Relevance and SignificanceTopic Relevance: The work is highly relevant to current trends in precision agriculture and the deployment of AI on IoT edge devices.Impact: Given that tea is a cornerstone of the domestic economy in regions like Bangladesh, an automated detection system for diseases like Blight, Red Rust, and Helopeltis has high practical and economic significance.3. Literature Review QualityComprehensiveness: The literature review covers the importance of tea, traditional detection challenges, and recent DL advances in crop disease . It correctly identifies a gap regarding the lack of large, standardized datasets in the tea industry.Missing Context: While it mentions advancements like attention mechanisms and wavelet transforms, more recent 2024-2025 SOTA comparisons in the specific tea domain could further strengthen the context.4. Methodology and Technical SoundnessClarity: The methodology is well-detailed, specifying a stratified 80-10-10 split , the use of the AdamW optimizer, and a custom multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classification head.Assumptions: The use of ImageNet-based normalization and resizing to $224 \times 224$ pixels are standard and valid for these architectures.Reproducibility: The authors provide specific hyperparameters (initial learning rate of 0.001, batch size of 16) and have made their dataset and code publicly available, which is excellent for reproducibility.5. Data, Experiments, and ResultsDatasets: The dataset is well-described, noting the use of an iPhone 12 Pro Max and expert annotation protocols to ensure ground-truth validity.Experiment Design: The benchmarking against six diverse architectures (ViT, ResNet50, etc.) is rigorous.Results: The hybrid model achieved 96.80% accuracy and a macro AUC of 0.9980. A notable finding is that while EfficientNetV2-B3 had slightly higher raw accuracy, the proposed hybrid framework showed better convergence stability.6. Analysis and DiscussionInsight: The discussion includes a cross-dataset generalization test on the teaLeafBD benchmark, which is a major strength.Limitations: The authors honestly acknowledge the relatively small dataset size (2,000 images) and the current lack of hardware-specific edge benchmarking.7. Clarity, Structure, and Writing QualityOrganization: The paper follows a logical flow from data acquisition to model evaluation.Language: The writing is formal and suitable for an international journal.8. Figures and TablesQuality: Figure 1 provides a clear overview of the methodology. Table 1 effectively summarizes the dataset attributes.Improvement: Ensure all axis labels in performance curves (e.g., Fig 11, Fig 12) are high-resolution and clearly readable in the final typeset.9. Ethical and Reproducibility ConsiderationsEthics: The study involves plant materials in a natural setting; the authors state no competing interests and provide a data availability statement.Reproducibility: Strong, due to the public GitHub repository and detailed hyperparameter listing.10. Strengths and WeaknessesStrengths:Novel dual-branch feature fusion approach.Publicly available, expert-annotated dataset.Cross-dataset validation demonstrating robustness.Weaknesses:Relatively small dataset size for deep learning (2,000 images).Absence of explainable AI (Grad-CAM) visualizations in the current version.Lack of empirical inference time on actual IoT hardware.11. Detailed Reviewer CommentsMajor:The authors should provide a more in-depth comparison of the computational complexity (FLOPs/Parameters) between the hybrid model and the baseline models to truly justify "lightweight" claims.Expand the "Limitations" section to explicitly discuss how the model might handle multi-disease leaves (co-infection), which is common in the field.Minor:Standardize the spelling of "EfficientNet" throughout the document (some instances have spaces).Ensure all citations in the text are consistently formatted according to PLOS One guidelines.

Reviewer #2: Most of the issues have been addressed. However, improvements can be made by including a flowchart diagram of the proposed hybrid technique and, in the paper (not as a supporting doc), the confusion matrix and classification report obtained by the proposed method. It is important for readers who want to compare it with their own work, etc.

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed. The paper is now improved and is clear and understandable for domain experts.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 May 15;21(5):e0349210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0349210.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


21 Apr 2026

We are thrilled to hear that you find the manuscript significantly improved and readily understandable for domain experts, and we deeply thank you for your final endorsement of our research.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.pdf

pone.0349210.s003.pdf (28.7KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 2

Asadullah Shaikh

28 Apr 2026

A Curated Dataset and Lightweight Deep Learning Framework for Tea Leaf Disease Classification

PONE-D-25-64363R2

Dear Dr. Arman,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Asadullah Shaikh, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All the issues are well addressed. No further comments.

The flowchart diagram of the proposed hybrid technique is included, and the confusion matrix and classification report obtained by the proposed method are included in the main paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Asadullah Shaikh

PONE-D-25-64363R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Arman,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Asadullah Shaikh

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0349210.s002.pdf (157.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.pdf

    pone.0349210.s003.pdf (28.7KB, pdf)

    Data Availability Statement

    The dataset comprising 2000 annotated tea leaf images was curated under real-world field conditions. It has been made available at https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/3x42rbj8yv/1. The computational code supporting the findings of this study is publicly accessible on GitHub: https://github.com/rayhankhan2192/Tea_Leaf_Disease_Model.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES