Closing the Loop on Contrail Avoidance with Satellite Verification

arXiv:2610.09363v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Contrails are the thin ice clouds that aircraft leave behind. They cause a large share of aviation's warming, and rerouting the few flights that produce them could avoid much of it. However, an avoided contrail only counts if a satellite can confirm that it never formed, and this check is hard: contrails are one to two pixels wide, cover only 0.18% of pixels, and look very similar to natural cirrus. We build a small diffusion model (8.4M parameters, trained on one GPU) that detects them, and we run a controlled study to find out which components matter. The model reaches 0.476 PR-AUC, compared with 0.414 for a DeepLabV3+ baseline and 0.119 for an adapted MedSegDiff. Doubling the input resolution of the CNN brings it to parity (0.499, p=0.07). Three lessons apply beyond contrails. First, check the input resolution before designing a new architecture. Second, simple flips and rotations more than double accuracy and matter more than any architectural choice we measured. Third, pretraining the model on contrail shapes is harmful: the model learns that thin strokes appear everywhere and paints them onto empty scenes. Precision collapses to 1% while recall-based metrics still rate the degraded model as excellent, and no threshold or guidance heuristic repairs this failure.

Abstract:Contrails are the thin ice clouds that aircraft leave behind. They cause a large share of aviation's warming, and rerouting the few flights that produce them could avoid much of it. However, an avoided contrail only counts if a satellite can confirm that it never formed, and this check is hard: contrails are one to two pixels wide, cover only 0.18% of pixels, and look very similar to natural cirrus. We build a small diffusion model (8.4M parameters, trained on one GPU) that detects them, and we run a controlled study to find out which components matter. The model reaches 0.476 PR-AUC, compared with 0.414 for a DeepLabV3+ baseline and 0.119 for an adapted MedSegDiff. Doubling the input resolution of the CNN brings it to parity (0.499, p=0.07). Three lessons apply beyond contrails. First, check the input resolution before designing a new architecture. Second, simple flips and rotations more than double accuracy and matter more than any architectural choice we measured. Third, pretraining the model on contrail shapes is harmful: the model learns that thin strokes appear everywhere and paints them onto empty scenes. Precision collapses to 1% while recall-based metrics still rate the degraded model as excellent, and no threshold or guidance heuristic repairs this failure.

Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV); Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2610.09363 [cs.CV]

(or arXiv:2610.09363v1 [cs.CV] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.09363 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Closing the Loop on Contrail Avoidance with Satellite Verification

Related coverage