Heart Disease Prediction: A Comparative Study of Optimisers Performance in Deep Neural Networks
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Optimization has been an important factor and topic of interest in training deep learning models, yet less attention has been given to how we select the optimizers we use to train these models. Hence, there is a need to dive deeper into how we select the optimizers we use for training and the metrics that determine this selection. In this work, we compare the performance of 10 different optimizers in training a simple Multi-layer Perceptron model using a heart disease dataset from Kaggle. We set up a consistent training paradigm and evaluate the optimizers based on metrics such as convergence speed and stability. We also include some other Machine Learning Evaluation metrics such as AUC, Precision, and Recall, which are central metrics to classification problems. Our results show that there are trade-offs between convergence speed and stability, as optimizers like Adagrad and Adadelta, which are more stable, took longer time to converge. Across all our metrics, we chose RMSProp to be the most effective optimizer for this heart disease prediction task because it offered a balanced performance across key metrics. It achieved a precision of 0.765, a recall of 0.827, and an AUC of 0.841, along with faster training time. However, it was not the most stable. We recommend that, in less compute-constrained environments, this method of choosing optimizers through a thorough evaluation should be adopted to increase the scientific nature and performance in training deep learning models.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 27 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Sep 2025.
Builds on
7 of 27 references.
References · 7
- 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
- 2016An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithmscited by 1,033
- 2019On the Convergence of Adam and Beyondcited by 841
- 2014Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overviewcited by 770
- 2015Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descentcited by 552
- 2017The Marginal Value of Adaptive Gradient Methods in Machine Learningcited by 250
- 2017Improving Generalization Performance by Switching from Adam to SGDcited by 125
Built on by
Not cited yet.