×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Original scientific article

A BENCHMARK COMPARISON OF SIMPLE CNN, RESNET-50, AND EFFICIENTNET FOR IMAGE CLASSIFICATION

By
V. Sahaya Sakila Orcid logo ,
V. Sahaya Sakila

SRM Institute of Science and Technology , Chennai , India

R. Sujeetha Orcid logo ,
R. Sujeetha

SRM Institute of Science and Technology , Chennai , India

S.V. Ramanathan Orcid logo ,
S.V. Ramanathan

SRM Institute of Science and Technology , Chennai , India

M. Adhithya Raj Orcid logo ,
M. Adhithya Raj

SRM Institute of Science and Technology , Chennai , India

B. Philip Regin Orcid logo
B. Philip Regin

SRM Institute of Science and Technology , Chennai , India

Abstract

Terrain Type Identification is an essential aspect of environmental monitoring, urban planning, and resource management. This study discusses a comparative investigation of the effectiveness of three Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures Simple CNN, ResNet-50, and the Enhanced Efficient CNN Model which is Efficient Net in training with the Euro SAT dataset of 27,000 geo-referenced Sentinel-2 satellite images in 10 land cover classes. This paper also examines the role of preprocessing techniques including image resizing, data augmentation, and normalization in improving the overall performance of the models. The effectiveness of each model was closely observed by looking at how they recognized different land cover types, ensuring balanced performance across all classes.   Experimental results indicate that the Efficient Net model has the highest classification accuracy of 97.5%, followed by Simple CNN with the accuracy of 94% and ResNet-50 with the accuracy of 89%. Furthermore, simple scaling preserves RGB features better than grayscale conversion. The study's results emphasize the need for selecting suitable model structures and preprocessing methods for successful terrain type identification through the use of remote sensing imagery, which concludes with the creation of efficient deep learning models for remote sensing.

References

1.
Gong P, Wang J, Yu L, Zhao Y, Zhao Y, Liang L, et al. Finer resolution observation and monitoring of global land cover: first mapping results with Landsat TM and ETM+ data. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2012;34(7):2607–54.
2.
Al-assadi KHF, A. Al Kaabi A. Geomorphological Changes of the Terrestrial Features of the Euphrates River between the Cities of Al-Kifl and Al-Mishkhab Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Natural and Engineering Sciences. 2024;9(2):347–58.
3.
Phiri D, Simwanda M, Salekin S, Nyirenda V, Murayama Y, Ranagalage M. Sentinel-2 data for land cover/use mapping: a review. Remote Sensing. 2020;(14):2291.
4.
Salman R. DeepQ Residue Analysis of Computer Vision Dataset using Support Vector Machine. Journal of Internet Services and Information Security. 2023;13(1):78–84.
5.
Pal M, Mather PM. Support vector machines for classification in remote sensing. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 2005;26(5):1007–11.
6.
Guo Z, Ramli DrMF, Cui R. Image Recognition of New Year Pictures based on Machine Learning. Journal of Wireless Mobile Networks, Ubiquitous Computing, and Dependable Applications. 2024;15(3):543–57.
7.
LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436–44.
8.
Cheng LW, Wei BL. A Novel Deep Geospatial Neural Network for Predicting Urban Land Subsidence. International Academic Journal of Innovative Research. 2025;12(1):45–56.
9.
Goodfellow I, Bengio Y, Courville A, Bengio Y. Deep learning. 2016;
10.
Zhang Z, Liu Q, Wang Y. Road Extraction by Deep Residual U-Net. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters. 2018;15(5):749–53.
11.
Khojasteh A, Jamshidi M, Vahedi E, Telikani S. Introduction to global navigation satellite systems and its errors. 2016;(3):53–61.
12.
Gislason PO, Benediktsson JA, Sveinsson JR. Random Forests for land cover classification. Pattern Recognition Letters. 2006;27(4):294–300.
13.
Akhtar P. An Online and Offline Character Recognition Using Image Processing Methods-A Survey. Int J Commun Comput Technol. 2016;102.
14.
Long J, Shelhamer E, Darrell T. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. 2015;3431–40.
15.
Tan M, Efficientnet L. Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. InInternational conference on machine learning. 2019;6105–14.
16.
Helber P, Bischke B, Dengel A, Borth D. EuroSAT: A Novel Dataset and Deep Learning Benchmark for Land Use and Land Cover Classification. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing. 2019;12(7):2217–26.
17.
Korpipaa P, Mantyjarvi J, Kela J, Keranen H, Malm E. Managing context information in mobile devices. IEEE Pervasive Computing. 2003;(3):42–51.
18.
Li Q, Wen Z, Wu Z, Hu S, Wang N, Li Y. A survey on federated learning systems: vision, hype and reality for data privacy and protection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2021;(4):3347–66.
19.
Blaschke T. Object based image analysis for remote sensing. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2010;65(1):2–16.
20.
Paramanantham PM, Seenivasan SR. Optimized deep learning based classification and prediction of land use/land cover changes from satellite images. Signal, Image and Video Processing. 2025;19(5).
21.
Pal M, Foody GM. Feature Selection for Classification of Hyperspectral Data by SVM. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing. 2010;48(5):2297–307.
22.
Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton G. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems. 2012;
23.
Reichstein M, Camps-Valls G, Stevens B, Jung M, Denzler J, Carvalhais N, et al. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature. 2019;566(7743):195–204.
24.
He K, Zhang X, Ren S, Sun J. Deep residual learning for image recognition. 2016;770–8.

Citation

This is an open access article distributed under the  Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.