DINOv3 Meets YOLO26 for Weed Detection in Vegetable Crops
Organizations: Department of Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48824
Abstract
Developing robust models for precision vegetable weeding is currently constrained by the scarcity of large-scale, annotated weed-crop datasets. To address this limitation, this study proposes a foundational crop-weed detection model by integrating heterogeneous datasets and leveraging self-supervised learning. A total of 618,642 crop-weed images were initially collected and subsequently refined to 199,388 filtered images for fine-tuning a DINOv3 vision transformer (ViT-small) through a sequential curation strategy. The fine-tuned DINOv3 backbone was then integrated into YOLO26, serving either as a primary backbone or part of a dual-backbone architecture. A feature alignment loss was introduced in the dual backbone framework to enhance feature fusion with minimal computational overhead. Experimental results show that the proposed DINOv3-finetuned ViT-small-based YOLO26-large achieved up to a +5.4% mAP50 gain on in-domain images collected in the 2025 season. Moreover, it demonstrated strong cross-domain generalization with mAP50 improvements of +14.0% on the 2021-2023 season dataset and +11.9% on the 2024 season dataset, compared to the standard YOLO26-large. Although the DINOv3-YOLO26-large model has 45.6% more parameters and a 2.9x increase in inference latency, it maintains real-time performance at ~28.5 frames per second (fps). The curated dataset and software programs developed in this study will be made publicly available.
Figures & tables
| Backbone Configuration | Crop (%) | Weed (%) | Average (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official ViT-Small | 92.2 | 83.1 | 87.7 |
| + Pretraining | 95.0 | 83.7 | 89.3 |
| + Gram Anchoring | 96.6 | 83.3 | 89.9 |
| + High-Res Adaptation | 88.6 | 76.4 | 82.5 |
| Components | Metrics | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Y-H | Y-H* | Y-B | ViT | STA | Align | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | (%) | (%) | Lat. (ms) | Param. (M) |
| ✓ | ✓ | 80.8 | 79.7 | 84.9 | 63.2 | 12.0 | 24.8 | ||||
| ✓ | ✓ | 86.3 | 84.3 | 89.8 | 68.9 | 12.4 | 24.5 | ||||
| ✓ | ✓ | 89.7 | 87.2 | 91.9 | 71.6 | 35.1 | 36.1 | ||||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 87.7 | 87.8 | 91.5 | 72.6 | 36.1 | 36.7 | |||
| ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | 89.6 | 86.5 | 91.3 | 71.0 | 41.6 | 50.2 | |||
| Dataset | Model | Precision (%) | Recall (%) | (%) | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | YOLO26 | 81.8 | 81.0 | ||
| YOLO26* | 86.8 | 84.1 | |||
| DINO-YOLO26* | 89.6 | 87.2 | |||
| DINO*-YOLO26* | 88.6 | 87.7 | |||
| 2024 | YOLO26 | 42.8 | 30.8 | ||
| YOLO26* | 44.4 | 34.9 |
Weed Detection
Weed detection uses computer vision to locate and identify weeds in crops for targeted monitoring and control.
See all 13 papers