Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Pedro Luiz de Paula Filho

Publications and source records attributed to Pedro Luiz de Paula Filho.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

WoodBR-Cross: A public wood-image dataset and individual-tree-disjoint benchmark for species identification

Wood-image benchmarks can yield optimistic estimates when images from the same tree occur in both training and test sets. WoodBR-Cross contains 4,875 transverse-surface images in 38 operational taxonomic classes, linked to 303 distinct trees identified by numeric catalogue witness codes (codigos-testemunho) in the Brazilian Forest Service collection. A species-level subset comprises 3,406 images, 20 classes and 214 trees. Three tasks compare duplicate-aware image partitions for all classes (A), image partitions for the species subset (B1), and individual-tree-disjoint partitions for that subset (B2). In B2, all images from each tree are kept together, so no tree is shared across training, validation or test within a fold. ResNet-50, ConvNeXt-Tiny and ViT-B/16 were evaluated with three outer folds, internal validation and five training seeds. Handcrafted and frozen-feature baselines complement border-only and randomized-label controls. Validation-selected ConvNeXt-Tiny achieved B2 tree-level macro-F1 of 0.8621 +/- 0.0317; frozen DINOv2 features yielded 0.9000 +/- 0.0722. Values are means and standard deviations across three seed-averaged fold means. Results estimate performance on previously unseen trees from this collection.

cs.CV↗

Performance evaluation in the reconstruction of 2D images of computed tomography using massively parallel programming CUDA

Analysis of processing time and similarity of images generated between CPU and GPU architectures and sequential and parallel programming. For image processing a computer with AMD FX-8350 processor and an Nvidia GTX 960 Maxwell GPU was used, along with the CUDAFY library and the programming language C\# with the IDE Visual studio. The results of the comparisons indicate that the form of sequential programming in a CPU generates reliable images at a high custom of time when compared to the forms of parallel programming in CPU and GPU. While parallel programming generates faster results, but with increased noise in the reconstructed image. For data types float a GPU obtained best result with average time equivalent to 1/3 of the processor, however the data is of type double the parallel CPU approach obtained the best performance. For the float data type, the GPU had the best average time performance, while for the double data type the best average time performance was for the parallel approach CPU. Regarding image quality, the sequential approach obtained similar outputs, while the parallel approaches generated noise in their outputs.

physics.med-ph↗