Systematic evaluation and benchmarking of YOLOv11, YOLOv12, and YOLOv13 for pipeline weld defect detection via Magnetic flux Leakage
Source abstract
Abstract
Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) inspection is critical for pipeline safety, yet no systematic benchmark exists for evaluating the latest YOLO architectures (v11–v13) on this task. To fill this gap, we present the first comprehensive benchmark for pipeline weld defect detection using MFL data. We propose a data segmentation strategy based on instance density and class distribution, and conduct a multi-dimensional evaluation of accuracy, efficiency, robustness and stability. Our results reveal four main findings. (1) Nano models offer superior accuracy and efficiency: YOLOv12n achieves 93.2% mAP@0.5 and 51.6% mAP@0.5:0.95, with computational efficiency about 3.3 times that of small models and accuracy difference within 1%. (2) Model scaling yields marginal gains: increasing parameters by 3.6 to 3.9 times improves mAP by less than 1%. (3) In dense, imbalanced data (89.6% dominant class), YOLOv11n is the most robust: its mAP@0.5 drops only 2.9 percentage points (vs. 7.5 for YOLOv12n) and minority‑class detection (abnormality in girth weld) is 12.7 points higher than that of YOLOv12n. (4) Data distribution decisively impacts performance – minority‑class detection falls up to 27.3 points on the dense set. This study establishes a reproducible benchmark for intelligent MFL inspection and provides practical guidance for model selection in industrial vision tasks.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses · Structural Integrity and Reliability Analysis
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Shenyang University of Technology
China Special Equipment Inspection & Research Institute
Shenyang Institute of Science and Technology
Liaoning Provincial Inspection and Testing Certification Center
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China · National Key R&D Program of China · Liaoning Province Joint Science and Technology Program Key R&D Project
References (38)
Show source-provided references
1. Yang LJ, Geng H, Gao SW. Internal magnetic flux leakage testing technology for long-distance oil and gas pipelines. J Instrum Meas. 2016;37(8):1737–1746.
2. Zuo WJ, Dai XB, Wu CY. Application of magnetic flux leakage testing in pipeline damage detection. Nondestruct Test. 2024;46(3):56–63.
3. 10.1109/tii.2019.292628310.1109/tii.2019.2926283 ↗
4. 10.3390/en1603137210.3390/en16031372 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.autcon.2024.10588710.1016/j.autcon.2024.105887 ↗
6. 10.1038/s41598-025-24850-710.1038/s41598-025-24850-7 ↗
7. 10.1016/j.eij.2025.10078710.1016/j.eij.2025.100787 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.eij.2025.10078510.1016/j.eij.2025.100785 ↗
9. 10.7717/peerj-cs.320010.7717/peerj-cs.3200 ↗
10. 10.1007/s00521-025-11287-210.1007/s00521-025-11287-2 ↗
11. 10.3390/futuretransp503012010.3390/futuretransp5030120 ↗
12. 10.1371/journal.pone.033421610.1371/journal.pone.0334216 ↗
13. 10.1007/s13369-023-08483-410.1007/s13369-023-08483-4 ↗
14. 10.1109/TIM.2024.335124110.1109/TIM.2024.3351241 ↗
15. 10.3390/electronics1307138810.3390/electronics13071388 ↗
16. 10.1038/s41598-025-94936-910.1038/s41598-025-94936-9 ↗
17. Wang GQ, Li X, Yang LJ, et al. Pipeline magnetic flux leakage signal recognition method based on improved YOLOv5 algorithm. Comput Meas Control. 2022;30(8):147–154.
18. 10.20169/j.issn.2095-2163.25013110.20169/j.issn.2095-2163.250131 ↗
19. 10.19650/j.cnki.cjsi.j241318810.19650/j.cnki.cjsi.j2413188 ↗
20. 10.1080/10589759.2025.252233010.1080/10589759.2025.2522330 ↗
21. 10.1109/ISCAIE61308.2024.1057641210.1109/ISCAIE61308.2024.10576412 ↗
22. 10.3390/fire801002610.3390/fire8010026 ↗
23. Liu B, Yang LJ. Magnetic flux leakage internal inspection technology for long-distance oil and gas pipelines. Beijing: China Machine Press; 2017.
24. Yang LJ, Zhang GG, Liu G. Pipeline magnetic flux leakage internal inspection technology. Beijing: Chemical Industry Press; 2014.
25. 10.1109/cvpr.2016.9110.1109/cvpr.2016.91 ↗
26. Wang X, Li H, Yue X, et al. A comprehensive survey on object detection YOLO. In: CEUR Workshop Proceedings; CEUR-WS.org, Aachen, Germany; 2023. Vol. 1613. p. 0073.
27. 10.1109/CVPR.2017.69010.1109/CVPR.2017.690 ↗
28. 10.48550/arxiv.1804.0276710.48550/arxiv.1804.02767 ↗
29. 10.48550/arxiv.2004.1093410.48550/arxiv.2004.10934 ↗
30. 10.5281/zenodo.415437010.5281/zenodo.4154370 ↗
31. 10.48550/arxiv.2209.0297610.48550/arxiv.2209.02976 ↗
32. 10.1109/cvpr52729.2023.0072110.1109/cvpr52729.2023.00721 ↗
33. Jocher G, Chaurasia A, Qiu J. YOLO by Ultralytics. Version 8.0.0. Ultralytics; 2023.
34. 10.48550/arxiv.2402.1361610.48550/arxiv.2402.13616 ↗
35. 10.48550/arxiv.2405.1445810.48550/arxiv.2405.14458 ↗
36. 10.48550/arxiv.2410.1772510.48550/arxiv.2410.17725 ↗
37. 10.48550/arXiv.2502.1252410.48550/arXiv.2502.12524 ↗
38. 10.48550/arXiv.2506.1773310.48550/arXiv.2506.17733 ↗