Comparative analysis of various models for image classification on Cifar-100 dataset
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nowadays, people developed various convolutional neural network (CNN) based models for computer vision. Some famous models, such as GoogLeNet, Residual Network (ResNet), Visual Geometry Group (VGG), and You Only Look Once (YOLO), have different architecture and performances. Determining which model to use may be a troublesome problem for those just starting to study image classification. To solve this problem, we introduce the GoogLeNet, ResNet-18, and VGG-16 models, comparing their architecture, features, and performance. Then we give our suggestions based on the test results to help beginners choose a suitable model. We conducted experiments to train and test GoogLeNet, ResNet-18, and VGG-16 on the Cifar-100 datasets with the same hyperparameters. Based on the test results (test accuracy, average test loss, training loss), we analyze the figures for trends, key points, increase rate, and other features. Then we combine the architecture of each model to make our conclusions. The experimental results show that ResNet-18 can be a good choice when training the model with the Cifar-100 datasets because it performs well after training and has a low time complexity. ResNet-18 also has the fastest convergence speed. GoogLeNet would be the second choice because it functions similarly to ResNet-18 and is even better. However, training GoogLeNet is a time-consuming task. VGG is not recommended in this experiment because it has the worst performance and similar training complexity compared with ResNet-18.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".