Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Wing icing alters the aerodynamic shape of lifting surfaces and threatens aviation safety. Existing icing-image datasets come mainly from wind tunnels or simulations, and image-level random splits overestimate generalisation for video data. We build a real UAV flight-test dataset of 13,890 pixel-level annotated wing images from backward-view videos over the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, with flight-wise splitting and a workflow extending to onboard prototype verification. For boundary under-segmentation in small-area visible icing we introduce an ROI boundary-weighted loss (ROI masking plus boundary-pixel weighting) with optional optical flow inter-frame smoothing. Against a SENet+CBAM baseline it raises recall for Rice<3% by up to 6.03 percentage points in the best run (mean +2.27 pp; not resolved with three seeds), but at matched precision the recall margin over that baseline is 0.11 pp and the Dice difference is +0.02 pp (95% interval −0.10 to +0.13), whereas the gain over plain U-Net is 0.47 pp Dice (95% interval 0.36–0.58). The final scheme reaches 91.34% Dice and 84.07% IoU (three-run means); an embedded-GPU prototype supports a 2 s/frame cycle. No annotated frame is ice-free, so specificity was measured on 1547 frames of two non-icing sorties (false positive rate 2.37×10−3, specificity 0.99763); the plain U-Net baseline is better there, and 95.3% of frames still show a small false positive on the clean leading edge, so the detections are appearance-driven rather than a physical measurement of ice extent. The results describe one platform, camera, flight region and annotation protocol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: