REVIEW 1 cited by
A Comparison of Optimization Algorithms for Deep Learning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
In recent years, we have witnessed the rise of deep learning. Deep neural networks have proved their success in many areas. However, the optimization of these networks has become more difficult as neural networks going deeper and datasets becoming bigger. Therefore, more advanced optimization algorithms have been proposed over the past years. In this study, widely used optimization algorithms for deep learning are examined in detail. To this end, these algorithms called adaptive gradient methods are implemented for both supervised and unsupervised tasks. The behaviour of the algorithms during training and results on four image datasets, namely, MNIST, CIFAR-10, Kaggle Flowers and Labeled Faces in the Wild are compared by pointing out their differences against basic optimization algorithms.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Foxtsage vs. Adam: Revolution or Evolution in Optimization?
Foxtsage, a population-based learning-rate controller combined with SGD, reports 42% lower aggregate loss than Adam on three benchmarks, but with only about 1% accuracy gains and a 330% time increase.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.