Automated Optimization-Based Deep Learning Models for Image Classification Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Applying deep learning models requires design and optimization when solving multifaceted artificial intelligence tasks. Optimization relies on human expertise and is achieved only with great exertion. The current literature concentrates on automating design; optimization needs more attention. Similarly, most existing optimization libraries focus on other machine learning tasks rather than image classification. For this reason, an automated optimization scheme of deep learning models for image classification tasks is proposed in this paper. A sequential-model-based optimization algorithm was used to implement the proposed method. Four deep learning models, a transformer-based model, and standard datasets for image classification challenges were employed in the experiments. Through empirical evaluations, this paper demonstrates that the proposed scheme improves the performance of deep learning models. Specifically, for a Virtual Geometry Group (VGG-16), accuracy was heightened from 0.937 to 0.983, signifying a 73% relative error rate drop within an hour of automated optimization. Similarly, training-related parameter values are proposed to improve the performance of deep learning models. The scheme can be extended to automate the optimization of transformer-based models. The insights from this study may assist efforts to provide full access to the building and optimization of DL models, even for amateurs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".