A Semantic Segmentation Method for Early Forest Fire Smoke Based on Concentration Weighting
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fire smoke detection based on deep learning has been widely studied. Labeling the smoke image is a necessity when building datasets of target detection and semantic segmentation. The uncertainty in labeling the forest fire smoke pixels caused by the non-uniform diffusion of smoke particles will affect the recognition accuracy of the deep learning model. To overcome the labeling ambiguity, the weighted idea was proposed in this paper for the first time. First, the pixel-concentration relationship between the gray value and the concentration of forest fire smoke pixels in the image was established. Second, the loss function of the semantic segmentation method based on concentration weighting was built and improved; thus, the network could pay attention to the smoke pixels differently, an effort to better segment smoke by weighting the loss calculation of smoke pixels. Finally, based on the established forest fire smoke dataset, selection of the optimum weighted factors was made through experiments. mIoU based on the weighted method increased by 1.52% than the unweighted method. The weighted method cannot only be applied to the semantic segmentation and target detection of forest fire smoke, but also has a certain significance to other dispersive target recognition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it