Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

PAPER NAME

Research_Work_2023.docx

WORD COUNT CHARACTER COUNT

5209 Words 32984 Characters

PAGE COUNT FILE SIZE

12 Pages 554.1KB

SUBMISSION DATE REPORT DATE

Nov 29, 2023 3:25 PM GMT+5:30 Nov 29, 2023 3:26 PM GMT+5:30

20% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.
7% Internet database 8% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
18% Submitted Works database

Excluded from Similarity Report

Bibliographic material

Summary
 Research Paper
Exploring the Effectiveness of MobileNetV2, VGG19, and a Simple CNN
Model for Image Classification
Amritanshu Bathre , Amit Kumar , Naman Pasari , Shrikant Suryawanshi
(Mathematics and Computing)
MITS Gwalior
35
Abstract: In the dynamic field of computer vision and image
classification, the choice of a deep learning model plays a crucial
role in achieving optimal performance across various applications.
14
This study conducts a comparative analysis of three distinct
convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures: MobileNetV2,
VGG19, and a simplified CNN model. The objective is to assess
their effectiveness in image classification tasks, considering factors
like accuracy, computational efficiency, and model complexity.
To ensure a thorough evaluation, a diverse dataset covering
multiple categories is utilized, enabling a robust assessment of the
models' generalization capabilities. The training process involves
hyperparameter optimization for fair comparisons, and the models
7
undergo rigorous testing on a separate validation set to measure
their performance under real-world conditions.
4
The experimental results provide nuanced insights into the
strengths and weaknesses of each architecture. MobileNetV2,
recognized for its lightweight design, demonstrates notable
efficiency in computational resource usage, making it well-suited
for deployment on resource-constrained devices. VGG19,
characterized by its deep and intricate structure, exhibits a strong
ability to capture complex hierarchical features, albeit with
increased computational demands. The simplified CNN model,
designed to strike a balance between complexity and performance,
emerges as a practical alternative in scenarios where a compromise
between accuracy and resource efficiency is sought.
52
This research contributes to the ongoing discourse surrounding the
selection of CNN architectures for image classification tasks. By
offering empirical evidence, it equips practitioners and researchers
with valuable insights to inform their decisions based on the
specific requirements of their applications.
Keywords: Image Classification, Convolutional Neural
Network(CNN), Comparative Analysis, Accuracy(CAA),
Computational Efficiency, Model Complexity, MobileNetV2,
VGG1.
I.
INTRODUCTION
In the rapidly evolving digital era, image classification has
become a pivotal task across various applications, including
45
autonomous vehicles, healthcare, security systems, and social
media platforms. The accurate classification of images is
fundamental in these sectors, serving as the foundation
6
for
subsequent analysis and decision-making processes. Convolutional
Neural Networks (CNNs) have significantly enhanced the
performance of image classification tasks by autonomously
learning spatial hierarchies of features. This research paper
explores the effectiveness of three CNN architectures:
MobileNetV2, VGG19, and a simple CNN model in image
classification.
MobileNetV2, developed by Google, is an efficient and lightweight
model tailored for mobile and embedded vision applications. It
utilizes inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks to balance
computational efficiency and model accuracy, crucial in resource-
57
limited mobile and embedded scenarios. This research focuses on
investigating the effectiveness of MobileNetV2 in such
applications.
In contrast, VGG19, originating from the Visual Graphics Group
at Oxford, is a deeper and more complex model renowned for its
outstanding performance on the ImageNet dataset. Its depth and
complexity, coupled with high performance, make it a popular
choice for image classification. However, VGG19 comes with
significantly higher computational requirements compared to
MobileNetV2. This study aims to provide a detailed analysis of
VGG19's performance and computational demands, offering
comprehensive insights into its suitability for image classification
tasks.
In contrasting these pretrained models, a simple CNN model,
33
typically comprising a few convolutional layers followed by max-
pooling and fully connected layers, offers a more straightforward
and customizable approach to image classification. While it may
not attain the same accuracy levels as its more intricate
counterparts, its simplicity and lower computational requirements
render it an appealing option for specific applications. This
research seeks to conduct an in-depth analysis of a simple CNN
model, exploring its strengths, weaknesses, and suitability for
various image classification tasks.
19
The primary objective is to provide a comprehensive comparison
of these three models concerning accuracy, computational
efficiency, and ease of implementation. This comparative analysis
will be grounded in a series of experiments utilizing a diverse
dataset of images. The outcomes of this study aim to furnish
valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in the selection
of the most appropriate model for their specific image
classification tasks. Additionally, the paper strives to contribute to
the ongoing discourse within the machine learning community
regarding the inherent trade-off between model complexity and
performance—an essential consideration in model selection with
profound implications for the efficiency and effectiveness of image
classification tasks.
8 for Large-Scale Image Recognition" (2014) remains influential in
Subsequent sections will delve into the intricacies of each model,
outline the methodology employed for the comparison, present the
results, and7 draw conclusions based on the findings. The
overarching goal is to provide a thorough comprehension of the
1 MobileNetV2, VGG19, and simple CNN models for image
strengths and weaknesses of each model, aiding in the decision-
making process for future image classification tasks. This research
is anticipated to be a valuable augmentation to the existing
knowledge in the realm of image classification using CNNs, with
the hope that the insights gained will inform and guide future
advancements in this swiftly evolving field.
II.
Literature Review
1
In the field of deep learning applications, several studies have made
significant contributions to image classification and feature
extraction techniques. In a study by Yasin Kaya and Ercan Gürsoy
38
(2023), a MobileNet-based CNN model with a unique fine-tuning
mechanism is proposed for COVID-19 infection detection. This
innovative approach enhances the model's adaptability and
accuracy in identifying COVID-19 infections, addressing a critical
need in healthcare challenges. SP Godlin Jasil and V.
Ulagamuthalvi (2021) focus on66skin lesion classification, utilizing
a deep learning architecture 22based on transfer learning. This
demonstrates the versatility of deep learning in medical imaging,
48
offering a potential tool for early and accurate diagnosis of skin
conditions. Monika Bansal et al. (2021) explore transfer learning
using VGG19 for image classification, highlighting the
effectiveness of pre-trained models on the challenging Caltech-101
image dataset. Atul Sharma and Gurbakash Phonsa (2021)
39
contribute to image classification using CNN, as presented at the
International Conference on Innovative Computing &
Communication. Yonis Gulzar (2023) introduces a fruit image
classification model based on MobileNetV2, employing a deep
transfer learning technique, showcasing the applicability of deep
learning in diverse domains beyond healthcare. Foundational
works such as "MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear
Bottlenecks" (Sandler et al., 2018), "Very Deep Convolutional
59
Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition" (Simonyan and
Zisserman, 2014), and "EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling
for Convolutional Neural Networks" (Tan and Le, 2019) provide
essential insights into the architectural advancements shaping
modern convolutional neural networks. Verma and Chandra's
comprehensive review (2020) synthesizes the landscape of CNN
applications, serving as a valuable resource for researchers and
practitioners. Lane, Bhattacharya, and Georgiev's "Practical Deep
Learning for Cloud, Mobile, and Edge" (2019) provides practical
insights into deploying deep learning models across various
platforms. Works by Goodfellow et al. (2016), Stanford
University's CS231n course materials, and Rosebrock's "Deep
Learning for Computer Vision with Python" (2018) contribute
essential knowledge to the deep learning landscape. Simonyan and
Zisserman's seminal work on "Very Deep Convolutional Networks
shaping the architecture of deep convolutional networks.
Despite the valuable insights provided by these works on
classification, a comprehensive comparison of these three models
60
in terms of accuracy, computational efficiency, and ease of
implementation is still lacking, which this research aims to address.
III.
TOOLS AND METHODOLOGY
A. TOOLS AND DATASETS ARE:
41
1. CIFAR-10 Dataset: The CIFAR-10 dataset, created by the
56
Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, is a widely utilized
19
collection of 60,000 32x32 color images categorized into 10 classes
34
such as airplanes, cars, birds, cats, deer, dogs, frogs, horses, ships,
and trucks. With 6,000 images per class, it serves as a key resource
for training machine learning and computer vision algorithms,
frequently employed as a benchmark for evaluating their
performance.
Each image in the CIFAR-10 dataset is a 32x32 color image, with
the RGB values stored in row-major order. The dataset is divided
36
into five training batches and one test batch, each containing
43
10,000 images. While the test batch comprises 1,000 randomly-
selected images per class, the training batches may have varying
class distributions.
Despite its popularity, the CIFAR-10 dataset presents challenges
due to the small image size, making it challenging for algorithms
to recognize subtle patterns. Additionally, the limited number of
images per class poses difficulties in distinguishing between
similar-looking classes.
However, these challenges render the CIFAR-10 dataset an
excellent tool for testing the robustness of machine learning
algorithms. Success on CIFAR-10 suggests potential efficacy on
larger, more intricate datasets.
1
In summary, the CIFAR-10 dataset is a valuable asset for machine
learning and computer vision enthusiasts. Its compact 1
size,
complexity, and widespread use make it an effective benchmark
for assessing the performance of machine learning algorithms,
catering to both beginners and seasoned researchers in the field.
47
2. Google Collab: Google Colaboratory, commonly referred to as
16
Google Colab, is a complimentary cloud-based service provided by
Google that allows users to write and execute Python code in an
interactive environment via a web browser. Built on the Jupyter
notebook framework, it combines code, text, and multimedia in a
single document, making it popular in the data science community.
A notable advantage of37Google Colab is its built-in access to
hardware accelerators, including Graphics Processing Units
(GPUs) and Tensor Processing Units (TPUs). These accelerators
significantly enhance computational speed, particularly beneficial
for training deep learning models.
20
Additionally, Google Colab seamlessly integrates with other
Google services like Google Drive and Google Sheets, facilitating
easy data import,
7
model storage, and result export. It also supports
widely used machine learning libraries such as TensorFlow,
PyTorch, and Keras, commonly employed for implementing and
training Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models.
In a research context, Google Colab proves invaluable, especially
when dealing with computationally intensive tasks like training and
comparing multiple models. Leveraging hardware accelerators and
integrating with Google Drive enhances efficiency and promotes
reproducibility and collaboration in research.
Moreover, the support for popular machine learning libraries
enables researchers to implement and train models using the latest
tools and techniques.
In summary, Google Colab stands out as a potent tool for machine
learning research. Its features, including free access to hardware
accelerators, smooth integration with Google services, and
compatibility with popular machine learning libraries, establish it
as an excellent platform for both beginners and seasoned
researchers in the field.
B. MODELS USED:
1. Simple CNN:
In the described Convolutional Neural Network (CNN)
architecture, a strategic design is employed to enhance feature
extraction from input data, particularly in18
the context of images.
The architecture consists of three distinct blocks, each comprising
convolutional layers and max pooling layers. This design facilitates
27
effective hierarchical representation learning, allowing the network
to discern intricate patterns within the data.
The operations within each block follow a specific sequence:
1. Convolutional Layer:
28
This layer utilizes filters to convolve over the input data, capturing
spatial hierarchies and extracting meaningful features. The
28
convolutional operation enables the network to recognize local
patterns and learn feature representations.
40
2. Max Pooling Layer:
Subsequent
21
to convolution, the max pooling layer is applied to
reduce the spatial dimensions of the feature maps. Max pooling
involves selecting the maximum value from a group of neighboring
values, effectively downsampling the information while retaining
53
the most salient features. This contributes to controlling the
computational complexity of the network and enhances its
robustness.
This process is iterated three times, constituting the three 5
convolutional and max pooling blocks. Post these blocks, the
feature maps undergo flattening into a one-dimensional vector.
This flattening operation is pivotal as it transforms the spatial
46
information from the convolutional and pooling layers into a
format suitable for input into densely connected layers.
50
Following flattening, the architecture integrates two dense (fully
connected) layers. These layers accept the flattened vector as input
and are adept at handling classification tasks. The dense layers are
particularly well-suited
26
for learning complex relationships in the
data, as they establish connections between every neuron in one
layer and every neuron in the subsequent layer.
In summation, the overall sequence of operations in this CNN
architecture involves the strategic utilization of convolutional and
max pooling layers in three successive blocks, followed by
flattening and processing through two dense layers ( as shown in
the following figure ). This comprehensive approach enables
effective feature extraction and complex relationship learning
within the network.

This architecture demonstrates notable effectiveness in
applications such as image classification, leveraging a hierarchical
feature extraction process through convolution and pooling. This
proven approach, combining multiple convolutional and pooling
blocks, has yielded success in accurately predicting outcomes by
capturing intricate patterns. The sequential stacking of these blocks
empowers the network to acquire progressively sophisticated
representations, enhancing its proficiency in identifying patterns
across diverse scales and complexities inherent in the input data.
2. MobileNetV2:
In the dynamic landscape of deep learning architectures, the
presented model offers a compelling synthesis of efficiency and
performance. The incorporation of MobileNetV2 as the
2
foundational layer, combined with global average pooling and a
dense layer, signifies a thoughtful design strategy that addresses
both computational efficiency and nuanced feature representation.
A. An Efficient Backbone:
MobileNetV2, an evolution of its predecessor MobileNet, is
5
recognized for its exceptional efficiency in resource-constrained
environments like mobile devices and edge computing platforms.
Key to its innovation is the integration of depthwise separable
convolutions, significantly reducing parameters and computations
compared to traditional convolutional layers.
Depthwise separable convolutions involve a depthwise
convolution followed by a pointwise convolution, striking a
51
balance between model size and performance, making it ideal for
computational resource-limited applications.
B. Global Average Pooling for Compact Representation:
12
The introduction of a global average pooling layer after
MobileNetV2 is a strategic choice for achieving efficiency and
regularization. Global average pooling computes the average value
of each feature map across its spatial dimensions, reducing spatial
dimensions to a single value per channel.
Beyond dimensionality reduction, global average pooling
introduces spatial regularization by summarizing features across
the entire spatial extent, enhancing generalization by focusing on
salient features and discarding spatially redundant information.

C. Dense Layer for Classification:
The final dense layer acts as the ultimate classifier, transforming
the compacted
20
feature representation into predicted output classes.
In this fully connected layer, each neuron connects to every neuron
in the preceding layer, facilitating the learning of complex
relationships within the data.
The dense layer leverages features extracted by MobileNetV2 and
condensed by global average pooling to make nuanced predictions.
Its configuration corresponds to the number of output classes, with
an activation function, often softmax, converting raw output into
probability distributions.
D. Synergy and Harmonization:
The seamless collaboration among MobileNetV2, global average
pooling, and the dense layer is unmistakable. MobileNetV2's
proficiency in feature extraction lays a sturdy foundation for
subsequent layers. Global average pooling complements this
process by consolidating features into a concise representation,
offering regularization benefits and mitigating overfitting
concerns.
Strategically positioned at the end, the dense layer conducts the
neural symphony, translating learned features into actionable
predictions. The overall harmonization of these components
signifies a deliberate effort to balance computational efficiency,
model compactness, and classification accuracy.
E. Advantages and Applicability:
The model's design 17
provides several benefits. MobileNetV2's
efficiency suits resource-constrained environments, enabling
deployment on devices with limited computational capabilities.
Global average pooling streamlines the architecture, fostering
spatial regularization that enhances generalization.
The use of a dense layer ensures adaptability to diverse tasks,
5
making the architecture valuable for image classification, object
detection, and various computer vision applications.
F. Considerations and Future Directions:
While the model excels in efficiency and performance, future
exploration is warranted. Fine-tuning hyperparameters like
learning rates and dropout rates could optimize performance.
Additionally, evaluating the model across different datasets and
task complexities will assess its versatility.
Future iterations may explore transfer learning techniques,
leveraging pre-trained MobileNetV2 weights on larger datasets to
enhance feature extraction and expedite convergence, especially in
scenarios with limited labeled data.
G. Conclusion:
2
In summary, the model architecture, featuring MobileNetV2,
global average pooling, and a dense layer, represents a thoughtful
and effective approach to deep learning. Its deployment in
computationally demanding scenarios, such as mobile and edge
computing, aligns with the need to optimize performance in
constrained environments.
The interplay between these architectural elements, each
contributing unique strengths, results in a holistic model striking a
delicate balance between efficiency and accuracy. This model not
only showcases the ongoing evolution of deep learning
architectures but also serves as a pragmatic and versatile solution
for various image-related tasks.
3. VGG19:
The model architecture described involves using VGG19 as the
2
foundational layer, followed by a global average pooling layer and
concluding with a dense layer. This configuration signifies a
deliberate design strategy aiming to harness the representational
power of VGG19, optimize computational efficiency through
22
global average pooling, and leverage a dense layer for final
classification. Let's delve into the details of each component in this
model.
A. VGG19 as the Foundational Layer:
15
VGG19, a variant of the VGG (Visual Geometry Group)
44
architecture, is known for its simplicity and effectiveness. It
27
consists of 19 layers, primarily composed of 3x3 convolutional
filters and max-pooling layers. The repeated stacking of these
layers allows VGG19 to capture intricate hierarchical features in
the input data, making it a formidable choice for image-related
tasks.
As the foundational layer, VGG19 serves17as a feature extractor,
hierarchically learning and representing complex patterns and
structures within the input data. The inherent depth of VGG19
makes it adept at discerning abstract features and enables the
subsequent layers to learn increasingly nuanced representations.
62
B. Global Average Pooling Layer:
12
Following the VGG19 base layer, a global
3
average pooling layer is
introduced. Global average pooling operates by computing the
average value of each feature map across its entire spatial
3 31
dimensions. This operation58condenses the spatial information
within each feature map into a single value per channel, resulting
in a compact representation of the learned features.
Global average pooling contributes to regularization by reducing
spatial redundancies and promoting a form of spatial
summarization. This can be advantageous in mitigating overfitting
4
and enhancing the model's ability to generalize well to unseen data.
Additionally, the reduction in spatial dimensions achieved by
global average pooling facilitates computational efficiency in
subsequent layers.
C. Dense Layer for Final Classification:
55
The architecture concludes with64a dense layer, serving as the final
stage for classification. This fully connected layer takes the
12
condensed features obtained from the global average pooling layer
23
and maps them to the desired output classes or predictions. Each
neuron in the dense layer is65connected to every neuron in the
preceding layer, enabling the model to capture intricate
relationships within the learned features.
24
The number of neurons in the dense layer corresponds to the
number of output classes, and an activation function, often a
softmax activation, converts the model's raw output into
probability distributions across these classes. The dense layer acts
as the decision-making hub, leveraging the hierarchical features
extracted by VGG19 and compacted by global average pooling for
precise classification.
D. Synergistic Design and Considerations:
The model's design reflects a synergistic approach to deep learning,
6
where each component plays a crucial role in enhancing the overall
effectiveness. VGG19's feature extraction capabilities, coupled
with the spatial summarization achieved by global average pooling,
contribute to a refined and nuanced representation that facilitates
accurate classification.
42
Considerations for fine-tuning hyperparameters, such 6
as learning
rates and dropout rates, may be pertinent to further optimize the
model's performance. Additionally, assessing the model's
robustness across different datasets and task complexities would
provide insights into its generalization capabilities.
E. Advantages and Applicability:
The utilization of VGG19 as the base layer imparts a robust feature
extraction capability to the model, making it suitable for a variety
of image-related tasks. The modular and scalable nature of VGG
architectures allows for adaptability to different scenarios, and the
2
subsequent incorporation of global average pooling and a dense
layer aligns with the broader goals of regularization and
classification.
This model configuration is versatile and can be applied to diverse
tasks such as image classification, object detection, and feature
extraction. Its proficiency in learning hierarchical features makes
it well-suited for scenarios where intricate patterns and structures
in the data need to be discerned.
F. Conclusion:
In conclusion, the model architecture featuring VGG19 as the base
layer, global average pooling for spatial summarization, and a

dense layer for final classification embodies a strategic and
effective approach to deep learning. Its application in image-
related tasks benefits from the depth and simplicity of VGG19,
coupled with the spatial regularization and classification prowess
2
provided by global average pooling and the dense layer,
respectively. This model stands as a testament to the adaptability
and versatility of deep learning architectures in addressing complex
tasks and scenarios.
IV
RESULTS
29
The primary objective of this
8
study is to assess and contrast the
efficacy of three distinct convolutional neural network (CNN)
architectures: MobileNetV2, VGG19, and a simplified CNN
model. The evaluation and training of these models took place on
1 32
the CIFAR-10 dataset, a prominent and extensively utilized
benchmark dataset specifically designed for image classification
endeavors.
TABLE I COMPARISON OF NETWORK VARIABLES OF VARIOUS CNNS
Models param data size param/data
3
scenarios. It gauges a model's ability to differentiate between
positive and negative classes under varying probability thresholds.
Breaking down its constituents:
5
1. ROC Curve (Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve):
10
This graphical representation juxtaposes the true positive rate
(sensitivity) against the false positive rate (1-specificity) at
different threshold settings. Each point on the ROC curve signifies
a sensitivity/specificity pair linked to a specific decision threshold.
63
2. AUC (Area Under the Curve):
9
Representing the area beneath the ROC curve, the AUC spans from
0 to 1, with a higher value signaling superior performance. An
AUC of 0.5 denotes a classifier no better than random, while an
AUC of 1.0 signifies impeccable discrimination between positive
and negative classes.
- AUC = 0.5: Random classifier
- AUC > 0.5: Superior to random
- AUC = 1.0: Flawless classifier
In essence, the AUC-ROC score offers a consolidated measure of
a classifier's performance across diverse decision thresholds. It
furnishes a singular value indicating the model's adeptness at
61
distinguishing between positive and negative instances.

In the subsequent section, the table provided enumerates the AUC-

CNN 68,000 10,000 68.0 ROC scores of the models, offering a comprehensive assessment
of their proficiency in discriminating between positive and
MobileNetV2 22,70,794 10,000 227.0794 negative classes.
VGG19 2,00,34,644 10,000 2003.4644
TABLE I COMPARISON OF NETWORK VARIABLES OF VARIOUS CNNS

Models AUC-ROC Score

Precession and recall formulas are also listed in the below image
for reference.

CNN 0.9421106
MobileNetV2 0.7725232888888888
VGG19 0.9116561666666667

A. AUC-ROC Comparison
3
The AUC-ROC (Area Under the Receiver 6 Operating
Characteristic) score stands as a widely employed metric for
assessing the performance of models in binary classification
B. Accuracy Comparison
The evaluation of three distinct models—Simple CNN,
MobileNetV2, and VGG19—on the CIFAR-10 dataset holds
1
pivotal significance in our study. CIFAR-10, comprising 60,000
32x32 color images distributed across 10 classes, presents a
formidable benchmark for image classification. This section
explores the comparative examination of accuracy attained by each
model, providing insights into their1
respective capabilities in
navigating the intricacies embedded within the CIFAR-10 dataset.

1. Model Descriptions
1. Simple CNN
The Simple CNN features a direct convolutional neural network
structure, incorporating convolutional layers succeeded by pooling
layers. Functioning as our baseline model, it establishes a
foundation for comparison.
2. MobileNetV2
MobileNetV2, known for its efficiency and suitability for mobile
and edge devices, features depth wise separable convolutions. Its
lightweight architecture aims to balance computational efficiency
and model accuracy.
3. VGG19
VGG19, an architecture known for its depth and computational
intensity, is comprised of 19 layers featuring small 3x3
convolutional filters. Acknowledged for its robust representation
capabilities, VGG19 is utilized as a benchmark, offering insight
into the delicate balance between model complexity and accuracy.
2. Visualization
Following graph presents the accuracy results for the three models
on the CIFAR-10 dataset.
C. Loss Comparison
The comprehensive evaluation of deep learning models is crucial
for discerning their efficacy in tackling specific tasks. This section
presents an in-depth comparison of the training and validation
losses incurred by three distinct models—Simple CNN,
11
MobileNetV2, and VGG19—when applied to the CIFAR-10
18
dataset. The analysis of these loss metrics offers valuable insights
into the convergence and generalization capabilities of each model.
To ensure a fair and standardized comparison of our proposed
11
model, we opted for the CIFAR-10 dataset, a widely recognized
benchmark extensively employed for assessing image
classification performance. Comprising 60,000 32x32 color
1
images distributed across 10 classes, the CIFAR-10 dataset
25
facilitates a rigorous evaluation. The dataset was partitioned into
training and validation sets, with the model trained on the former,
and hyperparameters fine-tuned using the latter. Consistency was
maintained by conducting training for an equal number of epochs
across all experiments.
The findings
15
are visually depicted in the subsequent graphs,
offering a comprehensive overview of the model's performance
throughout the training process. The initial set of graphs presents
summarized loss in both normal and log scales, providing insights
into the overall convergence trend. Following this, a more detailed
analysis unfolds with additional graphs showcasing individual
training and validation losses. These visualizations contribute to a
nuanced comprehension of the model's behavior, illuminating its
training dynamics and generalization capabilities.
A. Comparative Analysis
The loss comparison of individual function is also illustrated by
following figures

D. VGG19 Model
B. CNN - Our Model

C. Confusion Matrix
C. MobileNetV2 Model
 To gauge the classification prowess13
of the proposed models,
confusion matrices are employed as a fundamental tool in the 13
evaluation of machine learning classifiers. These matrices offer a
detailed breakdown of the model's predictions, providing valuable
13
insights into its capacity to accurately classify instances across
diverse classes.

Within the confusion matrix, the main diagonal elements signify

true positives and true negatives, indicating instances correctly
classified by the model. Conversely, off-diagonal elements,
encompassing false positives and false negatives, expose instances
where the model deviates from the ground truth.
8
The assessment focused on three distinct convolutional neural
network (CNN) architectures: a custom-designed Simple CNN,
MobileNetV2, and VGG19. These evaluations were carried out on
30
the CIFAR-10 dataset, housing 60,000 32x32 color images
distributed across ten classes. The central emphasis of this analysis
rests on the accuracy and confusion matrices of each model.

C.VGG19 Model
A. CNN - Our Model

The study findings reveal that among the three models assessed, a
simple CNN model attains the highest accuracy. This implies that
7
a streamlined and adaptable architecture
49
can be highly effective for
B. MobileNetV2 Model image classification tasks. The added advantage of the simple CNN
model lies in its lower computational cost, emphasizing its
practical utility. Although the MobileNetV2 and VGG19 models
exhibit comparatively lower accuracies in this study, it's worth
noting that their pre-trained weights and transfer learning
capabilities may confer advantages for particular image
classification tasks.
Conversely, the Simple CNN model proves to be adept at capturing
intricate features within images, resulting in commendable
accuracy. However, its considerable computational demands may
54
limit its practicality in resource-constrained environments. The
delicate balance between computational efficiency and accuracy
emerges as a pivotal factor in the decision-making process, 14
underscoring the importance of choosing models judiciously based
on the specific requirements of the image classification task.

MobileNetV2, prioritizing computational efficiency and a compact

V architecture, presents itself as a compelling solution for
applications that necessitate a careful equilibrium between
CONCLUSION accuracy and resource constraints. Its success lies in achieving a
thoughtful compromise, maintaining competitive accuracy levels
while minimizing the computational resource demands. The
The investigation into the effectiveness of MobileNetV2, VGG19,
model's suitability for mobile and edge devices positions it as a
and a Simple CNN model for image classification has revealed a
frontrunner in the dynamic field of image classification, where
nuanced interplay of factors crucial for selecting an appropriate
real-time inference and responsiveness are paramount.
model across diverse applications. MobileNetV2, prioritizing
Nonetheless, the inherent trade-off entails potential limitations in
computational efficiency and compact model size, emerges as an
capturing highly intricate features due to its simplified structure.
ideal option for scenarios requiring lightweight architectures. Its
capacity to maintain competitive accuracy while minimizing
The Simple CNN model, despite its lower complexity compared to
resource demands positions it as a leading choice for deployment
MobileNetV2 and VGG19, emerges as a viable option for specific
in mobile and edge devices, particularly in settings with
image classification scenarios. Its simplicity makes it well-suited
pronounced computational constraints. However, this advantage
for tasks with straightforward requirements and limited
comes with a potential trade-off, as its streamlined architecture
computational resources.
may result in a compromise in nuanced feature representation.
In conclusion, the exploration of the effectiveness of
The quest for effective image classification models involves
MobileNetV2, VGG19, and a Simple CNN in image classification
navigating4 a dynamic landscape characterized by the intricate
underscores the multifaceted nature of model selection. It
balance of factors such as accuracy, computational efficiency, and
4 transcends a singular pursuit of accuracy, emphasizing the delicate
model complexity. In this exploration, we conducted a comparative
balance of considerations that empower practitioners to navigate
analysis of three distinct models: MobileNetV2, recognized for its
the evolving landscape of image classification, tailoring models to
lightweight architecture tailored for resource-constrained
the unique requirements of each application. As technology
environments; VGG19, a deep and intricate model designed to
advances, the pursuit of optimal models remains dynamic, with
capture nuanced features within images; and a Simple CNN model,
each stride forward revealing new possibilities and refining our
a streamlined alternative suited for scenarios prioritizing simplicity
comprehension of the intricate interplay between complexity and
and efficiency.
efficiency in the domain of image classification.

REFERENCES
[1] Kaya, Yasin, and Ercan Gürsoy. "A MobileNet-based CNN model with a novel fine-tuning mechanism for COVID-19 infection detection." Soft Computing 27.9
(2023): 5521-5535.

[2] Jasil, SP Godlin, and V. Ulagamuthalvi. "Deep learning architecture using transfer learning for classification of skin lesions." Journal of Ambient Intelligence and
Humanized Computing (2021): 1-8.

[3] Bansal, Monika, et al. "Transfer learning for image classification using VGG19: Caltech-101 image data set." Journal of ambient intelligence and humanized computing
(2021): 1-12.

[4] Sharma, Atul, and Gurbakash Phonsa. "Image classification using CNN." Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovative Computing & Communication
(ICICC). 2021.

[5] Gulzar, Yonis. "Fruit image classification model based on MobileNetV2 with deep transfer learning technique." Sustainability 15.3 (2023): 1906.

[6] Sandler, M., Howard, A., Zhu, M., Zhmoginov, A., & Chen, L. C. (2018). MobileNetV2: Inverted Residuals and Linear Bottlenecks. In Proceedings of the IEEE
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[7] Simonyan, K., & Zisserman, A. (2014). Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556.

[8] Farabet, C., Couprie, C., Najman, L., & LeCun, Y. (2013). Learning Hierarchical Features for Scene Labeling. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine
Intelligence (TPAMI), 35(8), 1915-1929.

[9] Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2012). ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. In Advances in Neural Information
Processing Systems (NIPS).

[10] Tan, M., & Le, Q. V. (2019). EfficientNet: Rethinking Model Scaling for Convolutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine
Learning (ICML).

[11] Verma, A., & Chandra, D. (2020). A Comprehensive Review on Convolutional Neural Network with Various Applications. Artificial Intelligence Review, 53(8),
5455-5505)

[12] Lane, N. D., Bhattacharya, S., & Georgiev, P. (2019). Practical Deep Learning for Cloud, Mobile, and Edge. O'Reilly Media.

[13] Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A., & Bengio, Y. (2016). Deep Learning (Vol. 1). MIT press Cambridge.

[14] Stanford University. (Course materials and lecture notes on Convolutional Neural Networks for Visual Recognition. Available online: http://cs231n.stanford.edu/)

[15] Rosebrock, A. (2018). Deep Learning for Computer Vision with Python. PyImageSearch.

[16] Simonyan, Karen, and Andrew Zisserman. "Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition." arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 (2014).
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

20% Overall Similarity

Top sources found in the following databases:
7% Internet database 8% Publications database
Crossref database Crossref Posted Content database
18% Submitted Works database

TOP SOURCES
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be
displayed.

University of Surrey on 2023-09-19

1 1%
Submitted works

Riad Alharbey, Mohamed M. Dessouky, Ahmed Sedik, Ali I. Siam, Moha...

2 <1%
Crossref

University of Surrey on 2023-09-19

3 <1%
Submitted works

Manchester Metropolitan University on 2023-05-26

4 <1%
Submitted works

mdpi.com
5 <1%
Internet

Nottingham Trent University on 2023-08-18

6 <1%
Submitted works

Kaunas University of Technology on 2023-05-26

7 <1%
Submitted works

University of Hull on 2023-08-25

8 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

Southern New Hampshire University - Continuing Education on 2023-0...

9 <1%
Submitted works

Eastern University on 2023-07-26

10 <1%
Submitted works

University of Sunderland on 2023-10-26

11 <1%
Submitted works

"Neural Information Processing", Springer Science and Business Media...

12 <1%
Crossref

University of Essex on 2023-11-24

13 <1%
Submitted works

Omar Jilani Jidan, Susmoy Paul, Anirban Roy, Sharun Akter Khushbu, ...
14 <1%
Crossref

University College London on 2023-05-04

15 <1%
Submitted works

University of North Texas on 2023-09-18

16 <1%
Submitted works

Curtin University of Technology on 2023-10-29

17 <1%
Submitted works

University of Surrey on 2023-09-12

18 <1%
Submitted works

University of Hertfordshire on 2023-08-28

19 <1%
Submitted works

University of North Texas on 2023-04-21

20 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

University of Lancaster on 2023-08-11

21 <1%
Submitted works

Heriot-Watt University on 2022-08-15

22 <1%
Submitted works

University of Technology, Sydney on 2023-05-22

23 <1%
Submitted works

Veselin Atanasov. "Application of Convolutional Neural Networks and ...

24 <1%
Crossref

RMIT University on 2023-08-13

25 <1%
Submitted works

Signal Mountain Middle High School on 2023-11-27

26 <1%
Submitted works

University of Surrey on 2023-09-04

27 <1%
Submitted works

University of Western Ontario on 2023-11-23

28 <1%
Submitted works

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
29 <1%
Internet

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology on 2015-11-04

30 <1%
Submitted works

dspace.bracu.ac.bd
31 <1%
Internet

indico.desy.de
32 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

University of Surrey on 2015-04-01

33 <1%
Submitted works

digital.lib.washington.edu
34 <1%
Internet

Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2015.

35 <1%
Crossref

University of Sunderland on 2023-10-30

36 <1%
Submitted works

iaeme.com
37 <1%
Internet

ijournalse.org
38 <1%
Internet

papers.ssrn.com
39 <1%
Internet

CSU, San Jose State University on 2016-08-12

40 <1%
Submitted works

Intercollege on 2023-10-29
41 <1%
Submitted works

Middlesex University on 2023-11-20

42 <1%
Submitted works

Xu, Chunyan, Canyi Lu, Xiaodan Liang, Junbin Gao, Wei Zheng, Tianjian...
43 <1%
Crossref

amitos.library.uop.gr
44 <1%
Internet

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

data-science-ua.com
45 <1%
Internet

Al Quds University on 2023-05-31

46 <1%
Submitted works

Coventry University on 2023-08-08

47 <1%
Submitted works

Cranfield University on 2012-07-24

48 <1%
Submitted works

Hanoi University on 2023-11-06

49 <1%
Submitted works

Middlesex University on 2023-10-24

50 <1%
Submitted works

Narayanan Krishnasamy, Thangaraj Ponnusamy. " Deep robust hybrid ...

51 <1%
Crossref

National College of Ireland on 2023-05-13

52 <1%
Submitted works

Oxford Brookes University on 2023-04-29

53 <1%
Submitted works

Queen Mary and Westfield College on 2023-08-22

54 <1%
Submitted works

University of Southampton on 2022-09-22

55 <1%
Submitted works

University of Wales Institute, Cardiff on 2021-04-01

56 <1%
Submitted works

Sources overview
 Similarity Report ID: oid:28506:47471634

doras.dcu.ie
57 <1%
Internet

ebin.pub
58 <1%
Internet

image-net.org
59 <1%
Internet

library.ndsu.edu
60 <1%
Internet

Liverpool John Moores University on 2023-09-03

61 <1%
Submitted works

Qian Zhao, Shuzhi Sam Ge, Mao Ye, Sibang Liu, Wei He. "Learning Salie...
62 <1%
Crossref

Yonsei University on 2023-02-15

63 <1%
Submitted works

Coventry University on 2017-01-11

64 <1%
Submitted works

Manchester Metropolitan University on 2023-10-06

65 <1%
Submitted works

Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubba...

66 <1%
Crossref

Sources overview