Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

Does YOLO26 Truly Offer Advantages Over Its Predecessors for Edge Deployment? A Benchmark Study in Aquaculture

arxiv.org/abs/2607.09835

Updated 51 min ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294H3CV5PTKTYWH4Y8H1NXH

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 51 min ago
arXiv
2607.09835
T1 · 51 min ago
Category
cs.CV
T1 · 51 min ago

Abstract

The recently introduced YOLO26 architecture incorporates NMS-free end-to-end inference and is optimized for deployment on resource-constrained CPU-based devices, making it well-suited for edge-based aquaculture applications. However, its performance, operational efficiency, and deployment suitability have not been systematically validated in aquaculture-specific scenarios. This study presents a comprehensive benchmark of YOLO26 against three Ultralytics predecessors (YOLOv5u, YOLOv8, and YOLO11) across nano, small, and medium model scales for fish mortality detection, a critical indicator of fish population health and welfare. Twelve model variants were evaluated for detection accuracy, training efficiency across seven dataset sizes, and inference performance on high-performance NVIDIA A100 GPUs and a CPU-only Raspberry Pi 5 edge platform. All models achieved comparable performance on the full dataset, with mAP50 differing by only 1.04 percentage points, indicating that architectural generation has little influence on final detection accuracy when sufficient training data are available. However, clear trade-offs emerged in data efficiency and deployment performance. YOLOv8 achieved 90% mAP50 with only 400 training images, whereas the YOLO26 nano and small variants required 1,000 images to reach comparable accuracy. Conversely, YOLO26n achieved the highest inference speed on the Raspberry Pi 5 (7.51 FPS), while YOLOv5mu outperformed all contemporary medium-scale architectures on CPU-based hardware. These results show that architectural novelty alone is insufficient for model selection and that training data availability, target hardware, and inference requirements should be considered jointly when selecting object detection models for practical edge AI deployment in aquaculture.

Authors 5

Rakesh Ranjan, Gajanan S. Kothawade, Kata Sharrer, Scott Tsukuda, Christopher Good

Specification

Official page

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

Arxiv announce type
replace

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

arXiv id
2607.09835

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

Categories
cs.CV

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

DOI
10.3390/ai7090354

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

PDF

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

Primary category
cs.CV

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

Published
11 Sept 2026

Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 51 min agohigh

Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →

Provenance

Attributed facts

10

Source tiers

T110

Freshest observation

51 min ago

Conflicts

None