Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

YOLO Evolution: A Comprehensive Benchmark and Architectural Review of YOLOv12, YOLO11, and Their Previous Versions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.00201 v4 pith:LBS4QUCL submitted 2024-10-31 cs.CV

classification cs.CV
keywords comprehensiveyoloaccuracychallengesefficiencyobjectperformanceyolov12
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This study presents a comprehensive benchmark analysis of various YOLO (You Only Look Once) algorithms. It represents the first comprehensive experimental evaluation of YOLOv3 to the latest version, YOLOv12, on various object detection challenges. The challenges considered include varying object sizes, diverse aspect ratios, and small-sized objects of a single class, ensuring a comprehensive assessment across datasets with distinct challenges. To ensure a robust evaluation, we employ a comprehensive set of metrics, including Precision, Recall, Mean Average Precision (mAP), Processing Time, GFLOPs count, and Model Size. Our analysis highlights the distinctive strengths and limitations of each YOLO version. For example: YOLOv9 demonstrates substantial accuracy but struggles with detecting small objects and efficiency whereas YOLOv10 exhibits relatively lower accuracy due to architectural choices that affect its performance in overlapping object detection but excels in speed and efficiency. Additionally, the YOLO11 family consistently shows superior performance maintaining a remarkable balance of accuracy and efficiency. However, YOLOv12 delivered underwhelming results, with its complex architecture introducing computational overhead without significant performance gains. These results provide critical insights for both industry and academia, facilitating the selection of the most suitable YOLO algorithm for diverse applications and guiding future enhancements.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Comparative Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models for 2D Object Detection under SOTIF Conditions

    cs.CV 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On the PeSOTIF SOTIF benchmark, top LVLMs such as Gemini 3 and Doubao achieve higher recall than YOLOv5 in naturally degraded scenes while YOLOv5 retains better geometric precision on handcrafted perturbations.

  2. Tracking Moose using Aerial Object Detection

    cs.CV 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Across 36 model/threshold/overlap configurations, all three detectors reached at least 93% mAP@IoU=0.5, and the lightweight YOLOv11n matched the heavier models.

Pith tools