4.7 Article

Comparing workflow application designs for high resolution satellite image analysis

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2021.04.023

关键词

Image analysis; Task-parallel; Scientific workflows; Runtime; Computational modeling

资金

  1. NSF Earth-Cube Award, United States of America [1740572]
  2. NSF XRAC awards, United States of America [TG-MCB090174]
  3. Polar Geospatial Center, United States of America under NSF-OPP [1043681, 1559691]
  4. Directorate For Geosciences
  5. ICER [1740572] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the use of High Resolution satellite and aerial imagery for monitoring ecological systems and the application of Convolutional Neural Networks for image analysis. Three task-parallel, data-driven workflow designs are studied to support imagery analysis pipelines, with experimental results determining which design is best suited for scientific pipelines.
Very High Resolution satellite and aerial imagery are used to monitor and conduct large scale surveys of ecological systems. Convolutional Neural Networks have successfully been employed to analyze such imagery to detect large animals and salient features. As the datasets increase in volume and number of images, utilizing High Performance Computing resources becomes necessary. In this paper, we investigate three task-parallel, data-driven workflow designs to support imagery analysis pipelines with heterogeneous tasks on high performance computing platforms. We analyze the capabilities of each design when processing 3097 and 1575 images for two distinct use cases, for a total of 4,672 satellite and aerial images and 8.35 TB of data. We experimentally model the execution time of the tasks of the image processing pipelines. We perform experiments to characterize resource utilization, total time to completion and overheads of each design. Our analysis shows which design is best suited to scientific pipelines with similar characteristics. (C) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据