A Comprehensive Overview and Comparative Analysis on Deep Learning Models: CNN, RNN, LSTM, GRU

TL;DR

This paper provides a comprehensive survey and comparative analysis of various deep learning models, examining their structures, applications, and performance across multiple datasets and tasks.

Contribution

It offers a detailed comparison of multiple deep learning architectures, including recent models like TCN and Transformer, on diverse datasets for different applications.

Findings

Transformers outperform traditional RNNs on text datasets.

ResNet and DenseNet excel in image classification tasks.

Bidirectional models improve performance in sequential data analysis.

Abstract

Deep learning (DL) has emerged as a powerful subset of machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI), outperforming traditional ML methods, especially in handling unstructured and large datasets. Its impact spans across various domains, including speech recognition, healthcare, autonomous vehicles, cybersecurity, predictive analytics, and more. However, the complexity and dynamic nature of real-world problems present challenges in designing effective deep learning models. Consequently, several deep learning models have been developed to address different problems and applications. In this article, we conduct a comprehensive survey of various deep learning models, including Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Temporal Convolutional Networks (TCN), Transformer, Kolmogorov-Arnold networks (KAN), Generative Models, Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL), and Deep Transfer Learning. We examine the structure, applications, benefits, and limitations of each model. Furthermore, we perform an analysis using three publicly available datasets: IMDB, ARAS, and Fruit-360. We compared the performance of six renowned deep learning models: CNN, RNN, Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), Bidirectional LSTM, Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU), and Bidirectional GRU alongside two newer models, TCN and Transformer, using the IMDB and ARAS datasets. Additionally, we evaluated the performance of eight CNN-based models, including VGG (Visual Geometry Group), Inception, ResNet (Residual Network), InceptionResNet, Xception (Extreme Inception), MobileNet, DenseNet (Dense Convolutional Network), and NASNet (Neural Architecture Search Network), for image classification tasks using the Fruit-360 dataset.