## 5 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mushroom Species** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Accuracy (\%)**} \\  & **ViT-B/16** & **ViT-B/32** & **ViT-L/16** & **ViT-L/32** \\ \hline _Amantia vaginata_—E & 91.51 & 86.00 & 88.50 & 90.50 \\ _Armillaria nella_—E & 68.00 & 68.00 & 74.50 & 73.50 \\ _Boletis reticulatus_—E & 87.50 & 84.00 & 89.50 & 89.00 \\ _Chlorophyllum nolydities_—NE & 91.00 & 85.00 & 89.50 & 90.50 \\ _Culticia perreins_—NE & 90.50 & 87.00 & 93.00 & 92.00 \\ _Coprinellus disseminatus_—E & 96.00 & 92.00 & 97.50 & 93.50 \\ _Coprimopsis lagous_—NE & 92.00 & 91.50 & 92.50 & 90.00 \\ _Cortinarius violaccus_—NE & 95.50 & 90.50 & 95.00 & 95.50 \\ _Entoloma murravi_—NE & 98.50 & 96.50 & 97.50 & 97.50 \\ _Flammulina velitopes_—E & 92.50 & 84.50 & 90.50 & 88.50 \\ _Laceria lacacta_—E & 94.00 & 85.00 & 93.50 & 90.00 \\ _Macclopieproxera_—E & 90.00 & 89.00 & 88.50 & 86.00 \\ _Mycena epiletytyga_—NE & 90.00 & 89.00 & 92.50 & 89.00 \\ _Mycena pura_—NE & 90.00 & 85.00 & 95.00 & 89.50 \\ _Panus conchatus_—NE & 81.50 & 76.00 & 78.00 & 77.00 \\ _Panus lecomtei_—E & 85.50 & 78.50 & 87.50 & 80.00 \\ _Phallus indusiatus_—E & 99.00 & 97.50 & 99.50 & 98.00 \\ _Pleurotus ostreatus_—E & 85.00 & 77.00 & 94.00 & 84.50 \\ _Suillus granululatus_—E & 94.00 & 86.00 & 93.50 & 86.00 \\ _Tylopilus plumbeovolaceus_—NE & 90.50 & 89.50 & 89.50 & 87.50 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Accuracy in the identification of each species for ViT models. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Mushroom Species** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Accuracy (\%)**} \\  & **ResNet-18** & **ResNet-34** & **ResNet-50** & **ResNet-101** & **ResNet-152** \\ \hline _Amantia vaginata_—E & 86.50 & 82.50 & 80.50 & 81.00 & 80.50 \\ _Armillaria nella_—E & 53.50 & 57.50 & 61.50 & 65.00 & 60.00 \\ _Bolents reticulatus_—E & 75.50 & 81.00 & 76.50 & 77.00 & 75.00 \\ _Chlorophyllum nolydities_—NE & 71.00 & 82.00 & 84.50 & 85.50 & 83.00 \\ _Culticia perreins_—NE & 82.00 & 84.00 & 88.50 & 86.50 & 89.50 \\ _Coprimellus disseminatus_—E & 93.50 & 93.50 & 92.50 & 93.50 & 93.50 \\ _Coprimopsis lagous_—NE & 79.00 & 84.00 & 85.00 & 87.00 & 87.00 \\ _Cortinarius violaccus_—NE & 85.00 & 92.50 & 89.00 & 86.50 & 92.00 \\ _Entoloma murravi_—NE & 93.00 & 89.50 & 93.50 & 95.50 & 95.50 \\ _Flammulina velitopes_—E & 77.00 & 68.50 & 85.50 & 80.50 & 80.00 \\ _Lacaria lacacta_—E & 69.50 & 79.50 & 80.50 & 79.50 & 81.50 \\ _Macclopie proxera_—E & 90.00 & 88.00 & 88.50 & 82.00 & 85.50 \\ _Mycena epiletyga_—NE & 81.50 & 81.50 & 83.50 & 76.50 & 79.50 \\ _Mycena pura_—NE & 76.00 & 74.00 & 76.50 & 79.00 & 80.50 \\ _Panus conchatus_—NE & 69.00 & 70.00 & 77.00 & 76.00 & 73.50 \\ _Panus lecomtei_—E & 77.00 & 82.50 & 82.50 & 81.00 & 77.50 \\ _Phallus indusiatus_—E & 95.50 & 97.50 & 98.50 & 95.50 & 96.00 \\ _Pleurotus ostreatus_—E & 83.00 & 85.50 & 82.50 & 77.50 & 84.00 \\ _Sullus granululatus_—E & 77.00 & 80.00 & 85.00 & 84.00 & 85.00 \\ _Tylopilus plumbeovolaceus_—NE & 81.50 & 80.00 & 88.50 & 87.50 & 86.00 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Accuracy in the identification of each species for ResNet models. Figure 8: Confusion matrix for ViT-L/16. Figure 9: Confusion matrix for ViT-L/32. Figure 11: Confusion matrix for ResNet-34. Figure 10: Confusion matrix for ResNet-18. Figure 12: Confusion matrix for ResNet-50. Figure 13: Confusion matrix for ResNet-101. Figure 6-9 are the confusion matrixes for all ViT models. When comparing ViT models, the confusion matrix shows that the models tend to misclassify _Armillaria mellea_ as Ostreatus Pleroutus, Panus Lacomtei, and _Coprinellus disseminatus_, all of which are edible species. The models showed consistent results except for ViT B-32, which had a higher misclassification value of _Armillaria mellea_ as _Coprinellus disseminatus_ with a 10. The best performing species was _Phallus indusiatus_, with an identification accuracy of 97% and above. The lowest accuracy for this species was 97.50% from the ViT-B/32 model. Figures 10-14 are the confusion matrixes for all ResNet models.