Using deep learning to improve multi-day forecasts of extreme fire weather and behaviour throughout the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The ignition, spread, and severity of wildfires are driven largely by weather conditions (Jain et al. 2020: https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2020-0019; Liu et al. 2013: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055618). The main tool for weather prediction across the globe is a set of physical, coupled atmosphere/ocean models, called numerical weather prediction (NWP). Despite rapid improvements in the last few decades, NWP alone is not sufficient for wildfire prediction, because it does not resolve every process related to wildfire. One solution is to post-process NWP with statistical models, which correct the NWP model towards better resolving processes related to the phenomenon of interest (here, wildfire). This post-processing is called model-output statistics (MOS) and typically involves linear regression. However, recent work has advanced MOS by incorporating more powerful statistical models from deep learning (DL). We use DL to predict extreme fire weather and behaviour at multi-day lead times throughout the United States. For fire weather, we have trained U-nets -- a type of deep neural network -- to predict at lead times of 3-240 hours over the United States. The output (target) variables are seven indices from the Canadian Fire Weather Index System (CFWIS), computed from the ECMWF Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5). These seven indices include the fine-fuel moisture code (FFMC), initial-spread index (ISI), overall fire-weather index (FWI), etc. Meanwhile, the input (predictor) variables come from five sources. The first is a forecast time series of atmospheric state variables (height, temperature, humidity, and wind) from the Global Forecast System (GFS) NWP model. The second is a forecast time series of surface and subsurface moisture (soil moisture, accumulated precipitation, and snow depth) from the GFS. The third is a set of constant fields (terrain height/slope/aspect, land-sea mask, etc.) describing the underlying terrain. The fourth is a lagged time series of CFWIS over the past several days, i.e., past target values. The fifth is a forecast time series of CFWIS indices, computed by applying the CFWIS functions directly to GFS-forecast weather variables. These are the uncorrected (GFS-only) CFWIS forecasts, to be corrected by the U-net. For fire behaviour, we have trained random forests -- ensembles of decision trees -- to predict fire radiative power (FRP) at lead times of 1-48 hours over the United States. The labels (correct answers) for FRP are obtained from the Regional ABI and VIIRS Emissions (RAVE) merged satellite product. Predictors for the random forest include the first three sources listed for the U-net above, plus a lagged time series of FRP over the past 24 hours, i.e., past target values. Both models -- the U-net for fire weather and the random forest for fire behaviour -- are trained with built-in uncertainty quantification. Thus, at every lead time and grid point, both models provide an expected value and an estimate of their own uncertainty. We will present objective evaluation results (for both the mean forecast and uncertainty) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) to understand what the models have learned, e.g., which spatiotemporal weather patterns in a given area are most conducive to extreme fire weather/behaviour.
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 | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».