Comparing YOLOv11 and YOLOv8 for instance segmentation of occluded and non-occluded immature green fruits in complex orchard environment

In modern vehicular systems, robust performance under harsh conditions has become a critical problem of autonomous driving. Our study delivers a comprehensive evaluation of the newest iteration of the YOLO series, which is YOLOv11 Nano architecture benchmarked against the widely adopted YOLOv8 Nano as a baseline on a custom fused dataset that combines the Indian Driving Dataset (IDD) [1] and Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset (BDD100K) [2]. We have analyzed the trade-offs among detection accuracy, inference speed, and computational efficiency in high-entropy scenarios involving dense mixed traffic, rain, and low-light conditions. Specifically, YOLOv11n achieves a mean Average Precision (mAP@50) of 46.6%, with a notable 3.2% improvement in Precision over the baseline, effectively reducing false positives in cluttered scenes. Furthermore, the proposed model exhibits enhanced energy efficiency, requiring 22% fewer FLOPs (6.3G vs. 8.1G) while maintaining real-time inference speed of 70.9 FPS on a Tesla T4 GPU, offering an optimal trade-off for safety-critical edge deployment.

The application of computer vision in agriculture has shown significant potential for improving crop monitoring and precision farming. However, many existing approaches rely on controlled datasets that do not adequately represent realworld farming conditions, particularly in underrepresented regions such as Africa. This study presents a comparative evaluation of six object detection models YOLOv5, YOLOv8, YOLO11, YOLO26, Faster R-CNN, and RT-DETR using a real-world dataset, AgriAISeg 1 , collected manually from Nigerian farms. AgriAISeg comprises 3,382 images of sesame, cabbage, and tomato crops captured under varying environmental conditions, including changes in illumination, occlusion, and viewing perspectives. Models were trained, and performance was assessed using precision, recall, mAP@0.5, and mAP@0.5:0.95. The results show that RT-DETR achieved the highest overall performance with a precision of 0.768 and mAP@0.5:0.95 of 0.624, while YOLOv8 and YOLO11 also demonstrated strong and consistent performance. In contrast, Faster R-CNN recorded significantly lower accuracy, with an overall mAP@0.5 of 0.466, indicating reduced effectiveness under complex field conditions. In addition, YOLO-based models exhibited superior training efficiency compared to Faster R-CNN.These findings demonstrate that modern one-stage and transformer-based detectors provide more reliable and efficient solutions for plant detection in realworld agricultural environments.

This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the Ultralytics YOLO family, emphasizing architectural evolution, benchmarking, deployment, and emerging directions from YOLOv5 through YOLO27. The review begins with YOLO27 (or YOLOv27), which introduces a scale-adaptive dual-architecture strategy: compact YOLO27n/s detectors employ streamlined CNNs with dual-scale prediction, strengthened high-resolution features, foreground-alignment supervision, and conventional or NMS-free inference, whereas YOLO27m/l adopt query-based transformer decoding for native NMS-free detection. YOLO27l further incorporates an UltraViT backbone with deep-stage self-attention for global-context modeling. Preliminary COCO results span 42.3-60.4 mAP at 640-pixel resolution and 0.62-2.32 ms TensorRT 11 FP16 latency, with YOLO27l reaching 61.2 mAP at 800 pixels. The evolution is subsequently traced through YOLO26, including DFL removal, Progressive Loss Balancing, Small-Target-Aware Label Assignment, MuSGD optimization, and NMS-free inference; YOLO11, emphasizing efficiency and task integration; YOLOv8, introducing decoupled anchor-free detection; and YOLOv5, which established the modular PyTorch-based Ultralytics ecosystem. Comparative benchmarking examines accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, mAP, latency, and computational complexity alongside representative contemporary detectors. The review further examines detection, segmentation, depth, classification, pose, oriented detection, tracking, export, quantization, and deployment across robotics, agriculture, surveillance, and manufacturing. Finally, challenges involving dense scenes, CNN-Transformer integration, open-vocabulary perception, domain generalization, and hardware-aware optimization are discussed as directions for future YOLO systems.