Research Article
Unsupervised Texture Segmentation Using Active Contour Model and Oscillating Information
Table 1
Time consumption comparison of the Split-Bregman method with traditional gradient descent method.
| Methods | CPU time of every step (s) | Total CPU time (s) | Iteration number | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | First | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth |
| Traditional gradient descent | 3.107 | 2.954 | 3.077 | 3.094 | 3.102 | 372.86 | 147.73 | 153.80 | 495.12 | 465.28 | 120 | 50 | 50 | 160 | 150 | Split-Bregman method | 2.446 | 2.181 | 2.223 | 2.289 | 2.314 | 122.38 | 43.64 | 45.81 | 137.32 | 138.85 | 50 | 20 | 20 | 60 | 60 |
|
|