Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Fast fourier transform based new pooling layer for deep learning Cover
Open Access
|Apr 2022

Figures & Tables

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.

ImagesMetricsSaeedan et al. (2018)Lee et al. (2016)FTM1FTM2FTM3
LenaSNR dB23.2824.0124.175424.160324.16785
SSIM0.78820.78930.793960.778860.78641
Correlation0.98220.98330.98460.96950.97705
CameramanSNR20.1421.8720.293520.278420.28595
SSIM0.78540.78670.78910.7740.78155
Correlation0.98140.98430.99520.98010.98765
BarbaraSNR23.6922.1327.33627.320927.32845
SSIM0.70410.70650.70920.69410.70165
Correlation0.96220.96480.96120.94610.95365
Test imageSNR28.9828.7829.3829.364929.37245
SSIM0.78320.78410.78520.77010.77765
Correlation0.99130.99220.99650.98140.98895
Figure 5

Original images, pooled images and reconstructed images by FTM1.

Table 2

Proposed methods results for MNIST dataset.

MethodSaeedan et al. (2018)Lee et al. (2016)FTM1FTM2FTM3
Accuracy (%)98.8098.7299.9599.8499.96
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 0Class 1Class 2Class 3Class 4Class 5Class 6Class 7Class 8Class 9Sensitivity
Output class
  Class 0250000000000100
  Class 1025000000000100
10%%
  Class 2002500000000100
10%%
  Class 3000250000000100
10%%
  Class 4000025000000100
10%%
  Class 5000002500000100
10%%
  Class 6000000249000100
10%%
  Class 7000000025000100
10%%
  Class 800000010250099.9
10%6%
  Class 9000000000250100
10%%
10010010010010010010099.9100100100
%%%%%%%6%%%%
Table 4

Accuracy results for CIFAR10 dataset classification.

MethodSaeedan et al. (2018)Lee et al. (2016)RFT1RFT2RFT3
Accuracy (%)72.5972.473.8873.8273.76
Table 5

Confusion matrix for (FTM1) for CIFAR_10 classification.

Target class
airplaneauto mobibirdcatdeerdogfroghourshiptrucSens
Output class
  airpla7962968322513102257373
  autom1082966423415786
  bird4410599626942373213866
  cat183615333616574310956
  deer24375607083826555171
  dog44109201556922974358
  frog99466654138357178
  hours71161238253722486
  ship4836914964686282
  truck38758134628188083
  specifi79.882.359.853.371.6698373868274
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.

Language: English
Submitted on: Jul 1, 2021
Published on: Apr 15, 2022
Published by: International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2022 Aqeel Mohsin Hamad, published by International Journal on Smart Sensing and Intelligent Systems
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.