SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2305.17473

A Comprehensive Overview and Comparative Analysis on Deep Learning Models: CNN, RNN, LSTM, GRU

Abstract

Deep learning (DL) has emerged as a powerful subset of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), outperforming traditional ML methods, especially in handling unstructured and large datasets. Its impact spans across various domains, including speech recognition, healthcare, autonomous vehicles, cybersecurity, predictive analytics, and more. However, the complexity and dynamic nature of real-world problems present challenges in designing effective deep learning models. Consequently, several deep learning models have been developed to address different problems and applications. In this article, we conduct a comprehensive survey of various deep learning models, including Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN), Transformer, Kolmogorov-Arnold networks (KAN), Generative Models, Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), and Deep Transfer Learning. We examine the structure, applications, benefits, and limitations of each model. Furthermore, we perform an analysis using three publicly available datasets: IMDB, ARAS, and Fruit-360. We compared the performance of six renowned deep learning models: CNN, RNN, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Bidirectional LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and Bidirectional GRU alongside two newer models, TCN and Transformer, using the IMDB and ARAS datasets. Additionally, we evaluated the performance of eight CNN-based models, including VGG (Visual Geometry Group), Inception, ResNet (Residual Network), InceptionResNet, Xception (Extreme Inception), MobileNet, DenseNet (Dense Convolutional Network), and NASNet (Neural Architecture Search Network), for image classification tasks using the Fruit-360 dataset.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Farhad Mortezapour Shiri, Thinagaran Perumal, Norwati Mustapha, Raihani Mohamed. 2023-05-27. A Comprehensive Overview and Comparative Analysis on Deep Learning Models: CNN, RNN, LSTM, GRU. https://doi.org/10.32604/jai.2024.054314

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG