Fire hazard modelling with remote sensing data for South America
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Throughout the past couple years, changes in global climate have been turning wildfires into an increasingly unpredictable phenomenon. Many environmental parameters that have been linked to wildfires, such as the number of consecutive hot days, are becoming increasingly unstable. This leads to a twofold problem: adequate fire risk assessment is at the same time more important and more difficult than ever. In the past, physical models were the prevalent approach to most questions in the domain of wildfire science. While they tend to provide accurate and transparent results, they require domain expertise and often tedious manual data collection.In recent years, increased computation capabilities and the improved availability of remote sensing data associated with the new space movement have made deep learning a beneficial approach. Data-driven approaches often yield state of the art performance without requiring expert knowledge at a fraction of the complexity of physical models. The downside, however, is that they are often intransparent and offer no insights into their inner algorithmic workings. We want to shed some light on this interpretability/performance tradeoff and compare different approaches for predicting wildfire hazard. We evaluate their strengths and weaknesses with a special focus on explainability. We built a wildfire hazard model for South America based on a spatiotemporal CNN architecture that infers fire susceptibility from environmental conditions that led to fire in the past. The training data used contains selected ECMWF ERA5 Land variables and ESA world cover information. This means that our model is able to learn from actual fire conditions instead of relying on theoretical frameworks. Unlike many other models, we do not make simplifying assumptions such as a standard fuel type, but calculate hazard ratings based on actual environmental conditions. Compared to classical fire hazard models, this approach allows us to account for regional and atypical fire behavior and makes our model readily adaptable and trainable for other ecosystems, too.The ground truth labels are derived from fusing active fire remote sensing data from 20 different satellites into one active wildfire cluster data set. The problem itself is highly imbalanced with non-fire pixels making up 99.78% of the training data. Therefore we evaluate the ability of our model to correctly predict wildfire hazard using metrics for imbalanced data such as PR-AUC and F1 score. We also compare the results against selected standard fire hazard models such as the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI). In addition, we assess the computational complexity and speed of calculating the respective models and consider the accuracy/complexity/speed tradeoff of the different approaches. Furthermore, we aim to provide insights why and how our model makes its predictions by leveraging common explainability methods. This allows for insights into which factors tend to influence wildfire hazard the most and to optimize for relatively lightweight, yet performant and transparent architectures.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».