YOLOv10: Real-Time End-to-End Object Detection

Over the past years, YOLOs have emerged as the predominant paradigm in the field of real-time object detection owing to their effective balance between computational cost and detection performance. Researchers have explored the architectural designs, optimization objectives, data augmentation strategies, and others for YOLOs, achieving notable progress. However, the reliance on the non-maximum suppression (NMS) for post-processing hampers the end-to-end deployment of YOLOs and adversely impacts the inference latency. Besides, the design of various components in YOLOs lacks the comprehensive and thorough inspection, resulting in noticeable computational redundancy and limiting the model's capability. It renders the suboptimal efficiency, along with considerable potential for performance improvements. In this work, we aim to further advance the performance-efficiency boundary of YOLOs from both the post-processing and model architecture. To this end, we first present the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training of YOLOs, which brings competitive performance and low inference latency simultaneously. Moreover, we introduce the holistic efficiency-accuracy driven model design strategy for YOLOs. We comprehensively optimize various components of YOLOs from both efficiency and accuracy perspectives, which greatly reduces the computational overhead and enhances the capability. The outcome of our effort is a new generation of YOLO series for real-time end-to-end object detection, dubbed YOLOv10. Extensive experiments show that YOLOv10 achieves state-of-the-art performance and efficiency across various model scales. For example, our YOLOv10-S is 1.8$\times$ faster than RT-DETR-R18 under the similar AP on COCO, meanwhile enjoying 2.8$\times$ smaller number of parameters and FLOPs. Compared with YOLOv9-C, YOLOv10-B has 46\% less latency and 25\% fewer parameters for the same performance.

Paper

References (82)

Scroll for more · 38 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer qWaL5/10 · confidence 5/52024-06-13

Summary

This paper further advances the performance-efficiency boundary of YOLOs from both the post-processing and the model architecture. Specifically, the paper presents the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training of YOLOs, which brings the competitive performance and low inference latency simultaneously. In addition, this paper performs engineering optimizations on components of YOLOs in terms of speed and accuracy to achieve optimal performance.

Strengths

1. According to results in the paper, YOLOv10 achieves the best trade-off between speed and accuracy. 2. The idea of ​​removing NMS for YOLOs to improve is intuitive, and the advantages of NMS-free are analyzed in detail in the paper of RT-DETR[1]. 3. The the consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training is effective and significantly improves the end-to-end inference latency of YOLOs. 4. The holistic efficiency-accuracy driven optimizations listed in this paper is in line with the original design intention of the real-time detector. [1] Zhao, Yian, et al. "Detrs beat yolos on real-time object detection." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 2024.

Weaknesses

1. The motivation of this paper is not clear, and it seems to be intended to further optimize YOLOs from an engineering perspective to achieve better results. The analysis and solutions on NMS and model architecture are almost from existing technologies in the detection field. For example, Hbrid-DETR[1] proposed the drawbacks of one-to-one matching to achieve NMS-free, and then adopted a solution combining one-to-one matching and one-to-many matching; the results of this paper are inspiring, but more like a technical report, providing a stronger baseline for the field of real-time detection. 2. The paper claims that "the inherent complexity in deploying DETRs impedes its ability to attain the optimal balance between accuracy and speed." This seems to lack the necessary evidence. RT-DETR retains most of the components of DETRs and achieves strong results, greatly improving the detection speed and accuracy of DETRs and providing multiple deployment options. 3. If possible, please provide speed comparison results of YOLOv10 and competitors on other hardware. [1] Jia, Ding, et al. "Detrs with hybrid matching." Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2023.

Questions

Please answer the questions stated in the weakness.

Rating

5

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

See Weaknesses.

Reviewer snfm7/10 · confidence 5/52024-06-25

Summary

This paper presents a one-stage object detector that introduces a consistent dual assignments strategy, effectively eliminating the need for NMS and significantly accelerating inference speed with minimal impact on accuracy. Additionally, the paper explores a series of model designs aimed at balancing efficiency and accuracy, enhancing overall model performance.

Strengths

1. The introduction of a consistent dual assignments strategy enables the one-stage detector to operate without NMS, significantly boosting inference speed. 2. The focus on efficiency-driven model design minimizes accuracy loss while improving the model's efficiency. 3. The incorporation of large-kernel convolutions and partial self-attention mechanisms enhances model performance with minimal additional computational cost.

Weaknesses

1. The paper could benefit from discussing related works on hybrid or multiple group label assignment strategies, which are prevalent in recent DETR-based detectors. 2. The implementation of a one-to-many head as an auxiliary head likely increases training costs. The paper lacks comparative data on training time and costs, which should be addressed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the model's efficiency.

Questions

See weakness. Besides, you mention that intrinsic ranks indicate redundancy, leading to the replacement of certain blocks with CIB in high redundancy stages. After these modifications, do the intrinsic ranks in these stages actually decrease?

Rating

7

Confidence

5

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The paper discusses their limitations in the appendix.

Reviewer nrqj5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

The authors further improve the YOLO series detector to the tenth generation, through the following two points. The first part is the post-processing improvement, and the authors propose consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training. The second part is the effective model architecture design, where the authors reconstruct the internal structure details. Comprehensive experiments are performed to validate that YOLOv10 strikes a balance between efficiency and accuracy well.

Strengths

1. The authors propose a good lightweight detection framework and effectively push the YOLO framework to the End-to-End inference paradigm, which is undoubtedly admirable. 2. The manuscript is explicit and well-organized. 3. Experimental validation is sufficient and solid. The authors conduct comprehensive experiments on various metrics and show a large improvement, which is impressive. Furthermore, the ablation study is in detail.

Weaknesses

1. The novelty of the paper is weak. First, the “dual assignments” is similar to H-DETR [1], where the hybrid matching scheme has been proposed, and is consistent with the dual assignment of LRANet [2]. Besides, the lightweight classification head and spatial-channel decoupled downsampling have been proposed by DAMO-YOLO [3] and large-kernel convolution is common in previous methods. The paper is more like a technical report. 2. More lightweight detectors should be listed in Table 1, including DAMO-YOLO, and YOLOv7. Besides, the authors should specify at what batch size the delay is calculated. [1] Jia, Ding, et al. "Detrs with hybrid matching." *Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition*. 2023. [2] Su, Yuchen, et al. "LRANet: Towards Accurate and Efficient Scene Text Detection with Low-Rank Approximation Network." *Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence*. Vol. 38. No. 5. 2024. [3] Xu, Xianzhe, et al. "Damo-yolo: A report on real-time object detection design." *arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.15444* (2022).

Questions

1. This End-to-End paradigm is still based on the anchor-based dense detection paradigm, so the final prediction results have a lot of background. Usually, there are only less than 300 objects in a picture, so there will be almost 8000 invalid detections in YOLOs, which is undoubtedly a waste. In terms of efficiency, I think it is a bit inferior to the object query of the DETR framework.

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

2

Limitations

The authors adequately addressed the limitations.

Reviewer nrqj2024-08-08

Thank you for your kind and detailed responses and most of my concerns are now resolved. Although I still maintain a cautious attitude toward the innovative aspect of this paper, I would like to keep my positive score for the submission.

Reviewer vpxY6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

The paper presents YOLOv10, an advancement in the YOLO series for real-time object detection. The authors have focused on eliminating the need for Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS) and optimizing the model architecture for efficiency and accuracy. The paper includes a novel training strategy and architectural enhancements, demonstrating improved performance on the COCO dataset.

Strengths

1. The introduction of consistent dual assignments for NMS-free training is an innovative solution that potentially improves the end-to-end deployment efficiency of object detectors. 2. The paper presents a comprehensive strategy for optimizing model components, which is a significant advancement over prior works that focused on isolated aspects of model design. 3. The paper is backed by extensive empirical evidence, showing improvements in both speed and accuracy over previous models.

Weaknesses

1. While the paper introduces a new training strategy, the innovations in the model's architectural design are not as pronounced. A more detailed exposition of the creative process and rationale behind the architectural choices would strengthen the paper's contribution to the field. 2. The paper acknowledges a 1% Average Precision (AP) difference when comparing the YOLOv10-N model trained with NMS-free to the original one-to-many training with NMS. It is better to provide further performance analysis of NMS-free training. 3. Latency of YOLOv10 with the original one-to-many training using NMS should be reported.

Questions

1. Could you report more details on the training cost compared to other YOLOs, such as total training epochs and throughput( with dual label assignments training). 2. Given that previous iterations of the YOLO series have typically been trained for 300 epochs, would the authors be able to present the training outcomes for YOLOv10 at this epoch count?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

This paper has discussed the limitations in Appendix.

Reviewer snfm2024-08-09

Thank you for addressing my concerns. With the clarifications provided, I am satisfied and will maintain my current evaluation score.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC