This study presents OptiWood-YOLO, a YOLOv8n-based pipeline for automated wood-surface defect detection. Defective timber materials were obtained in collaboration with wood-processing companies, and documented image acquisition included controlled laboratory imaging. The dataset comprises 10,507 images annotated for six wood-surface inspection categories—blistering, crack, fingerjoint, planing torn, scratch, and wrinkling—and one auxiliary Objects class. We investigate preprocessing and data augmentation and compare the resulting detector with YOLOv11, faster R-CNN, and RT-DETR under a fixed image-level train/validation/test partition. The reported model-comparison values for OptiWood-YOLOv8n are precision 0.54, recall 0.47, mAP@0.5 0.46, and mAP@0.5:0.95 0.23, compared with an mAP@0.5 of 0.45 for YOLOv11. These single-run point estimates indicate broadly comparable YOLO performance rather than statistically demonstrated superiority. The reported throughput for OptiWood-YOLOv8n was 51.30 FPS in the specified evaluation environment. Because the original image-level split does not guarantee independence of physical timber samples, and complete source and evaluation-provenance records are unavailable, the reported results should be interpreted as exploratory performance under the original partition, not as verified generalization to unseen timber samples or production lines.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: