Comprehensive investigation on Deep learning models: Applications, Advantages, and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have been completely transformed by deep learning (DL), which provides unmatched power in handling massive, unstructured information from a variety of fields. CNNs, neural networks with recurrent connections (RNNs), generative models, (DRL), and deep learning via transfer are the main deep learning models that are covered in detail in this article. The structure, uses, advantages, and drawbacks of each model are thoroughly investigated. In this work, we use the Fruit-360 dataset, a benchmark picture classification dataset, for an empirical investigation. Six well-known deep learning architectures are compared and evaluated: Bidirectional LSTM, CNN, Simple RNN, (LSTM), (GRU), and Bidirectional GRU. Analysis is done on performance parameters including accuracy, precision, recall, and computing efficiency to have a better understanding of how well they work on various tasks. The purpose of this survey is to give scholars, professionals, and enthusiasts a thorough grasp of the various uses and capacities of deep learning models. The study provides insights that help progress the discipline and direct the selection of suitable models for certain real-world problems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".