Demonstrates effective few-shot inspection for wind turbine blades, indicating potential for industrial use with limited data.
Wind turbine blades are a load-bearing element whose undetected damage propagates rapidly. Reliable, automated inspection is therefore a high-leverage problem. Existing supervised deep-learning approaches, however, are constrained by the scarcity of pixel-annotated damage data and produce models that cannot adapt to new defect types without retraining. Vision-language models (VLMs) offer a path around the data bottleneck through their generalist visual reasoning, but two obstacles remain: they lack domain-specific knowledge, and they cannot produce the pixel-level spatial outputs that maintenance planning requires. This work introduces a unified few-shot framework that resolves both obstacles within a single inference pass. We establish that VLM cross-modal attention, generated as a byproduct of caption synthesis, encodes spatially structured task-relevant information, and we introduce a knowledge-guided IoU-based mechanism that converts this passive signal into pixel-level segmentation masks without any segmentation training. Domain expertise is injected through a three-tier hierarchical knowledge base, defect taxonomy, visual exemplars, and spatial patterns, that mirrors how expert inspectors progressively refine their assessment. On the public DTU dataset, the framework achieves 98.3% classification accuracy and 0.862 Dice coefficient using only 15 training samples per class, outperforming the strongest supervised baseline by 13.3%; cross-domain validation on the NEU surface defect benchmark confirms the framework transfers to a fundamentally different industrial inspection setting. The significance is twofold: methodologically, we show that attention as a side product of generation can be repurposed as an active grounding signal; practically, we demonstrate that few-shot VLM-based inspection is viable for industrial deployment where labeled data is scarce.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhou et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: