Vibeleaderboard
← Benchmark guide

Model results

Roboflow Model Leaderboard

Choose a shared evaluation protocol to compare model scores. Versions, sources and configurations stay separate.

Atlas snapshot captured 10/19/2026, 10:20:28 AM UTC. This is an import timestamp, not the evaluation date. Coverage may be incomplete.

← All evaluation groups

Roboflow Model Leaderboard · mAP at IoU 0.50:0.95, large objects

Source
Roboflow Model Leaderboard (reviewed publisher results)
Version
COCO 2017 (publisher version unspecified)
Measurement date
2025-07-21
Metric
fraction · Higher is better
Evaluation scope
COCO 2017 object detection; large objects; publisher-reported mAP at evaluation IoU 0.50:0.95; source fractions on 0–1 scale; inference parameters {"conf":0.001,"imgsz":640,"iou":0.7,"max_det":100,"verbose":false}; linked evaluator loads val2017/instances_val2017, but live table does not identify its split or dataset digest; declared model variants, not verified execution checkpoint hashes; executed dependency versions, hardware, precision, run count and uncertainty not supplied; publisher run-record date, not release date; size boundaries and exact aggregation implementation unverified

Exact score ties share a position. Positions do not establish statistical significance. Missing metadata is shown as unreported; matching imported metadata is not independent verification of the protocol.

  1. #1YOLOv10x

    thu-mig/yolov10x

    0.7021620917054258 fraction

  2. #2YOLOv10l

    thu-mig/yolov10l

    0.6906996233226468 fraction

  3. #3YOLOv10b

    thu-mig/yolov10b

    0.6790430525647013 fraction

  4. #4YOLOv10m

    thu-mig/yolov10m

    0.6625214790830711 fraction

  5. #5YOLOv10s

    thu-mig/yolov10s

    0.6294864726481645 fraction

  6. #6YOLOv10n

    thu-mig/yolov10n

    0.5457561111940177 fraction

Roboflow Model Leaderboard model results | VibeLeaderboard