Sep 2026· Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Remote-Sensing Image Classification
Abstract
The most popular architecture for land-cover classification and remote sensing remains image classification, and EuroSAT remains the benchmark dataset. Six studies from the literature (2023–2026) report either classification accuracy or deployment efficiency for CNNs, but none report both dimensions for the same model across multiple platforms in an image-classification setting. This paper closes that gap with a controlled deployment experiment. A single ResNet-18 was trained once on EuroSAT (97.78% test accuracy) and its weights were frozen. The model was then deployed unmodified across CPU and GPU hardware at three numeric precisions (FP32, FP16, INT8), and accuracy, inference latency, throughput, and memory usage were measured for each of the five resulting configurations. Key findings: Accuracy is nearly invariant to platform and precision (97.70–97.73%, a spread of 0.03 points). Latency spans a 633-fold range, from 3.909 ms (GPU/FP32) to 2,473.969 ms (CPU/FP16). GPU inference is ~12.4× faster than CPU at matched FP32 precision. CPU-side INT8 quantization gives an 8.9× speedup over CPU/FP32 with no accuracy cost. CPU-side FP16 is ~51× slower with no benefit and should be avoided. Only two of five configurations are Pareto-optimal: GPU/FP32 and CPU/INT8. An independent replication on a second CPU (consumer laptop) confirms the same qualitative latency pattern, though its measured accuracy differs from the desktop — a discrepancy that is flagged and discussed rather than reconciled. Edge-device deployment (Raspberry Pi / Jetson-class hardware) was not measured directly, due to lack of access, and is reported as an explicit limitation rather than estimated. These measurements are used to propose a CNN Deployment Selection Framework that maps deployment constraint profiles (latency-critical, memory-constrained, accuracy-critical, balanced) to a recommended platform-precision configuration. This record archives the paper and the full experimental pipeline (training, precision export, benchmarking, and analysis code) for reproducibility.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.
M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al.· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 401 citations· ⚡48
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The perception of the impact of agile methods is predominantly positive, and several challenge areas were discovered, but based on this study, agile methods are here to stay.
M. Laanti, O. Salo, P. Abrahamsson· Information and Software Tec...· 260 citations· ⚡20
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 8, 2026
Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity. The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.