Papers › How to Use Dropout Correctly on Residual Networks with Batch Normalization
How to Use Dropout Correctly on Residual Networks with Batch Normalization
Bum Jun Kim, Hyeyeon Choi, Hyeonah Jang, Donggeon Lee, Sang Woo Kim
For the stable optimization of deep neural networks, regularization methods such as dropout and batch normalization have been used in various tasks. Nevertheless, the correct position to apply dropout has rarely been discussed, and different positions have been employed depending on the practitioners. In this study, we investigate the correct position to apply dropout. We demonstrate that for a residual network with batch normalization, applying dropout at certain positions increases the performance, whereas applying dropout at other positions decreases the performance. Based on theoretical analysis, we provide the following guideline for the correct position to apply dropout: apply one dropout after the last batch normalization but before the last weight layer in the residual branch. We provide detailed theoretical explanations to support this claim and demonstrate them through module tests. In addition, we investigate the correct position of dropout in the head that produces the final prediction. Although the current consensus is to apply dropout after global average pooling, we prove that applying dropout before global average pooling leads to a more stable output. The proposed guidelines are validated through experiments using different datasets and models.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Tasks
1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
| Task | Dataset | Model | Metric | Value | Rank at snapshot | Leaderboard | Report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fine-Grained Image Classification | Caltech-101 | PreResNet-101 | Top-1 Error Rate | 15.8036% | #13 of 18 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Fine-Grained Image Classification | Oxford-IIIT Pets | PreResNet-101 | Accuracy | 85.5897 | #17 of 19 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-10 | PreResNet-110 | Percentage correct | 94.4367 | #156 of 265 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | CIFAR-100 | PreResNet-110 | Percentage correct | 73.98 | #159 of 211 | Archive leaderboard | report |
| Image Classification | ImageNet | DenseNet-169 (H4*) | Top 1 Accuracy | 79.152% | #772 of 1060 | Archive leaderboard | report |
Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.
Methods
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections