Closing the Loop on Contrail Avoidance with Satellite Verification
Organizations: School of Computing Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA, USA
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.
Figures & tables
| Method | Par. | PR-AUC | SkelRec | HD | P | R | F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DeepLabV3+ | 26.7M | 0.414 | 0.816 | 57.3 | 0.420 | 0.520 | 0.465 |
| +8-fold TTA | 26.7M | 0.442 | 0.805 | 55.7 | 0.476 | 0.484 | 0.480 |
| input | 26.7M | 0.499 | 0.836 | 51.2 | 0.508 | 0.573 | 0.539 |
| MedSegDiff | 129M | 0.119 | 0.825 | 312.8 | 0.050 | 0.533 | 0.092 |
| Twin (ours, no diffusion) | 8.4M | 0.209 | 0.781 | 113.8 | 0.352 | 0.309 | 0.329 |
| Ours | 8.4M | 0.476 | 0.877 | 127.9 | 0.392 | 0.640 | 0.486 |