
Figure 1
Proposed pooling layer.

Figure 2
Proposed first (FTM1) algorithm.

Figure 3
Proposed second (FTM2) algorithm.

Figure 4
Proposed third (FTM3) algorithm.
Table 1
Performance of proposed methods.
| Images | Metrics | Saeedan et al. (2018) | Lee et al. (2016) | FTM1 | FTM2 | FTM3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lena | SNR dB | 23.28 | 24.01 | 24.1754 | 24.1603 | 24.16785 |
| SSIM | 0.7882 | 0.7893 | 0.79396 | 0.77886 | 0.78641 | |
| Correlation | 0.9822 | 0.9833 | 0.9846 | 0.9695 | 0.97705 | |
| Cameraman | SNR | 20.14 | 21.87 | 20.2935 | 20.2784 | 20.28595 |
| SSIM | 0.7854 | 0.7867 | 0.7891 | 0.774 | 0.78155 | |
| Correlation | 0.9814 | 0.9843 | 0.9952 | 0.9801 | 0.98765 | |
| Barbara | SNR | 23.69 | 22.13 | 27.336 | 27.3209 | 27.32845 |
| SSIM | 0.7041 | 0.7065 | 0.7092 | 0.6941 | 0.70165 | |
| Correlation | 0.9622 | 0.9648 | 0.9612 | 0.9461 | 0.95365 | |
| Test image | SNR | 28.98 | 28.78 | 29.38 | 29.3649 | 29.37245 |
| SSIM | 0.7832 | 0.7841 | 0.7852 | 0.7701 | 0.77765 | |
| Correlation | 0.9913 | 0.9922 | 0.9965 | 0.9814 | 0.98895 |

Figure 5
Original images, pooled images and reconstructed images by FTM1.
Table 2
Proposed methods results for MNIST dataset.
| Method | Saeedan et al. (2018) | Lee et al. (2016) | FTM1 | FTM2 | FTM3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | 98.80 | 98.72 | 99.95 | 99.84 | 99.96 |

Figure 6
Accuracy of MNIST classification for proposed method.

Figure 7
Sensitivity results for proposed method for MNIST classification.

Figure 8
Specificity results for proposed method for MNIST classification.

Figure 9
Training steps for MNIST classification by (FTM1) method.
Table 3
Confusion matrix for (FTM1) method for MNIST Classification.
| Target class | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class 0 | Class 1 | Class 2 | Class 3 | Class 4 | Class 5 | Class 6 | Class 7 | Class 8 | Class 9 | Sensitivity | |
| Output class | |||||||||||
| Class 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Class 1 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 2 | 0 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 249 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| Class 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 250 | 0 | 99.9 |
| 10% | 6% | ||||||||||
| Class 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 250 | 100 |
| 10% | % | ||||||||||
| 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.9 | 100 | 100 | 100 | |
| % | % | % | % | % | % | % | 6% | % | % | % | |
Table 4
Accuracy results for CIFAR10 dataset classification.
| Method | Saeedan et al. (2018) | Lee et al. (2016) | RFT1 | RFT2 | RFT3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (%) | 72.59 | 72.4 | 73.88 | 73.82 | 73.76 |
Table 5
Confusion matrix for (FTM1) for CIFAR_10 classification.
| Target class | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| airplane | auto mobi | bird | cat | deer | dog | frog | hour | ship | truc | Sens | |
| Output class | |||||||||||
| airpla | 796 | 29 | 68 | 32 | 25 | 13 | 10 | 22 | 57 | 3 | 73 |
| autom | 10 | 829 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 15 | 7 | 86 |
| bird | 44 | 10 | 599 | 62 | 69 | 42 | 37 | 32 | 13 | 8 | 66 |
| cat | 18 | 3 | 61 | 533 | 36 | 16 | 57 | 43 | 10 | 9 | 56 |
| deer | 24 | 3 | 75 | 60 | 708 | 38 | 26 | 55 | 5 | 1 | 71 |
| dog | 4 | 4 | 109 | 201 | 55 | 69 | 22 | 97 | 4 | 3 | 58 |
| frog | 9 | 9 | 46 | 66 | 54 | 13 | 83 | 5 | 7 | 1 | 78 |
| hours | 7 | 1 | 16 | 12 | 38 | 25 | 3 | 72 | 2 | 4 | 86 |
| ship | 48 | 36 | 9 | 14 | 9 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 86 | 2 | 82 |
| truck | 38 | 75 | 8 | 13 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 18 | 80 | 83 |
| specifi | 79.8 | 82.3 | 59.8 | 53.3 | 71.6 | 69 | 83 | 73 | 86 | 82 | 74 |

Figure 10
Accuracy results for proposed method for CIFAR 10 classification.

Figure 11
Specificity results for proposed method for CIFAR 10 classification.

Figure 12
Precision results for proposed method for CIFAR 10 classification.