# Experimental Analysis of Neural Network-Based Image Classification on the CIFAR-10 Dataset

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.18565 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.18565/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 20 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1512.03385/) (2015)
- [Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6980/) (2014)
- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- [Very Deep Convolutional Networks for Large-Scale Image Recognition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1409.1556/) (2014)
- [Batch Normalization: Accelerating Deep Network Training by Reducing Internal Covariate Shift](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.03167/) (2015)
- [Densely Connected Convolutional Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.06993/) (2016)
- [mixup: Beyond Empirical Risk Minimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1710.09412/) (2017)
- [Delving Deep into Rectifiers: Surpassing Human-Level Performance on ImageNet Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.01852/) (2015)

## Abstract (arXiv)

An experimental investigation of neural image classification on the CIFAR-10 benchmark is presented through fully connected and convolutional network formulations. The analysis emphasizes the complete learning pipeline: image vectorization, normalization, one-hot class encoding, supervised loss minimization, learning-rate selection, mini-batch training, convolutional feature extraction, max-pooling, and validation-based generalization assessment. A convolutional architecture with six convolutional layers and three max-pooling stages is evaluated for ten training epochs using a batch size of 128 and an Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001. The validation accuracy reaches approximately 74.77%, while the validation loss begins to increase after the middle of training despite continued reduction in training loss. The resulting behavior illustrates the practical difference between representation learning and memorization, and it provides a compact experimental baseline for future studies on regularization, data augmentation, deeper architectures, and reproducible image-classification education.