MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322010501 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-9426

Fire hazard modelling with remote sensing data for South America

2023· preprint· en· W4322010501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Johanna Strebl, Julia Gottfriedsen, Dominik Laux, Max Helleis, Volker Tresp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterpretabilityHazardComputer scienceDomain (mathematical analysis)Strengths and weaknessesData scienceLand coverHazard analysisArtificial intelligenceLand useEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→