Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Evaluates edge PCB defect detection metrics in varied configurations, indicating performance differences.
PCB detector comparisons are often distorted by changed train/validation splits, input scales, training budgets, and hardware assumptions, which is unacceptable for PLC-coupled inspection. This paper establishes a PLC-aware benchmark for edge PCB defect detection by fixing the archived DeepPCB 1350/150 split, re-training principal external baselines under a common 896 px, 300-epoch protocol, and evaluating deployment through the delay model tau = t(s) + c * Delta t. Under aligned recognition, re-trained YOLO11n attains the best mean mAP50-95 of 0.8511, followed by Ezekias-style YOLO11n at 0.8495 and LPCB-YOLO at 0.7745. Within the native internal sim_rpi5 profile, Ours-LW records 0.8199 mean mAP50-95 with 40.11 ms latency, 24.93 FPS, 248.68 mJ proxy energy, and tau = 47.61 ms at c=1. Under the stricter all-route sim_rpi5-remapped comparison, Ezekias-style YOLO11n yields the strongest proxy deployment tuple at 45.48 ms, 21.99 FPS, 281.95 mJ, and tau = 52.98 ms, with YOLO11n close behind at 46.50 ms and 288.31 mJ. The benchmark therefore separates recognition leadership, native deployment judgment, and common-scale deployment ranking instead of collapsing them into one winner. YOLO11 hybrid attribution further shows that migrated P2/BiFPN/CA variants remain within 0.0060 mAP50-95 of the YOLO11n control, indicating that the current accuracy ceiling is driven mainly by backbone and retraining route rather than by replaying the older lightweight stack.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jiahong Qin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: