4.6 Review

A Comparison of Pooling Methods for Convolutional Neural Networks

Journal

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 17, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app12178643

Keywords

pooling methods; deep network; convolutional neural network; overfitting; down sampling; visual recognition

Funding

  1. Deanship of Scientific Research at Majmaah University [R-2022-254]
  2. Almaarefa University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia [2021-27]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper provides an understanding of the importance and role of pooling layers in convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Pooling layers reduce the resolution of feature maps, decrease spatial dimensions, minimize computational costs, and prevent overfitting.
One of the most promising techniques used in various sciences is deep neural networks (DNNs). A special type of DNN called a convolutional neural network (CNN) consists of several convolutional layers, each preceded by an activation function and a pooling layer. The feature map of the previous layer is sampled by the pooling layer (that seems to be an important layer) to create a new feature map with condensed resolution. This layer significantly reduces the spatial dimension of the input. It always accomplished two main goals. As a first step, it reduces the number of parameters or weights to minimize computational costs. The second step is to prevent the overfitting of the network. In addition, pooling techniques can significantly reduce model training time and computational costs. This paper provides a critical understanding of traditional and modern pooling techniques and highlights the strengths and weaknesses for readers. Moreover, the performance of pooling techniques on different datasets is qualitatively evaluated and reviewed. This study is expected to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the importance of CNNs and pooling techniques in computer vision challenges.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available