QoS-Based Assessment and Classification of Network Conditions Using OSPF and BGP Routing Protocols
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62951/ijamc.v3i2.293Keywords:
YOLO, Object Detection, Traffic Monitoring, Precision–Recall Analysis, Deep LearningAbstract
Object detection plays a crucial role in intelligent transportation systems, particularly for outdoor traffic monitoring applications that require accurate and real-time performance under limited computational resources. Recent developments in YOLO-based architectures have introduced multiple model variants; however, their practical performance under constrained training conditions remains insufficiently explored. This study presents a comparative evaluation of YOLOv5, YOLOv7, and YOLOv8 for outdoor traffic object detection using a real-world dataset and identical experimental settings. The main objective of this research is to analyze the robustness and detection quality of different YOLO variants when trained with a limited number of epochs, reflecting practical deployment scenarios. All models were trained and evaluated using the same dataset, preprocessing pipeline, and hardware configuration to ensure a fair comparison. Performance evaluation was conducted using multiple metrics, including precision, recall, mAP@50, Precision–Recall curves, area under the curve (AUC), and peak F1-score. Experimental results indicate that YOLOv5 outperformed YOLOv7 and YOLOv8 in terms of overall detection stability and robustness. The merged Precision–Recall analysis shows that YOLOv5 achieved a higher effective AUC and superior mAP@50, reflecting better global detection performance. In addition, YOLOv5 exhibited a higher peak F1-score, indicating a more balanced trade-off between precision and recall. In contrast, YOLOv7 and YOLOv8 showed performance degradation under limited training conditions despite their more advanced architectures. These findings suggest that YOLOv5 remains a reliable and efficient solution for outdoor traffic object detection, particularly in resource-constrained environments. The study highlights the importance of comprehensive evaluation metrics and practical experimental settings when selecting object detection models for real-world applications.
References
D. R. I. M. Setiadi, S. Rustad, P. N. Andono, and G. F. Shidik, “Digital image steganography survey and investigation (goal, assessment, method, development, and dataset),” Signal Processing, vol. 206, p. 108908, May 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.sigpro.2022.108908.
D. R. I. M. Setiadi, T. Sutojo, E. H. Rachmawanto, and C. A. Sari, “Fast and efficient image watermarking algorithm using discrete tchebichef transform,” in 2017 5th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM), Aug. 2017, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/CITSM.2017.8089229.
A. Vyas, S. Yu, and J. Paik, “Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing,” in A John Wiley & Sons, 2018, pp. 3–11. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-7272-7_1.
ICCC FBI, “Internet Crime Report 2021,” 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/PDF/AnnualReport/2021_IC3Report.pdf
USC Viterbi School of Engineering, “SIPI Image Database.” http://sipi.usc.edu/database/ (accessed Mar. 27, 2019).
Bochkovskiy, A., Wang, C. Y., & Liao, H. Y. M. (2020). YOLOv4: Optimal speed and accuracy of object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.10934. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10934
Amuda, S., Mulya, M. F., & Kurniadi, F. I. (2021). Analysis and design of computer network performance comparison using static routing, OSPF, and BGP protocols (Case study: Tanri Abeng University). Journal of Computer Networks, 4(2), 45–53.
Basit, Z., Tabassum, M., Sharma, T., Furqan, M., & Quadir, A. (2022). Performance analysis of OSPF and EIGRP convergence through IPsec tunnel using multi-homing BGP connection. Materials Today: Proceedings, 62, 4853–4861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.03.486
Cisco Systems. (2020). Quality of service networking. Cisco Press.
Devikar, R. N., Patil, D. V., & Chandraprakash, V. (2016). Study of BGP convergence time. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 6(1), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijece.v6i1.8106
Forouzan, B. A. (2017). Data communications and networking (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
Guntoro, Sadar, M., & Syafitri, W. (2022). Evaluasi performance jaringan internet kampus menggunakan Quality of Service (QoS). Jurnal Teknologi Informasi, 6(2), 280–290.
Hardiansyah, A., Hilman, M., & Tirtayasa, A. (2025). Comparative analysis of dynamic routing protocol implementation: OSPF and BGP in laboratory networks. Journal of Network Engineering, 9(1), 33–41.
Hu, C., Ruan, Y., & Guo, J. (2025). Network planning design and simulation for SMEs. In Proceedings of SPIE (p. 136927G). https://doi.org/10.1117/12.3068600
Khan, M. A., Khan, I. U., Safi, A., & Qureshi, I. M. (2018). Dynamic routing in flying ad-hoc networks using topology-based routing protocols. Drones, 2(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/drones2030027
Kurose, J. F., & Ross, K. W. (2021). Computer networking: A top-down approach (8th ed.). Pearson Education.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Computing

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.


