Deep Learning Approaches for Wildland Fires Remote Sensing: Classification, Detection, and Segmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The world has seen an increase in the number of wildland fires in recent years due to various factors. Experts warn that the number of wildland fires will continue to increase in the coming years, mainly because of climate change. Numerous safety mechanisms such as remote fire detection systems based on deep learning models and vision transformers have been developed recently, showing promising solutions for these tasks. To the best of our knowledge, there are a limited number of published studies in the literature, which address the implementation of deep learning models for wildland fire classification, detection, and segmentation tasks. As such, in this paper, we present an up-to-date and comprehensive review and analysis of these vision methods and their performances. First, previous works related to wildland fire classification, detection, and segmentation based on deep learning including vision transformers are reviewed. Then, the most popular and public datasets used for these tasks are presented. Finally, this review discusses the challenges present in existing works. Our analysis shows how deep learning approaches outperform traditional machine learning methods and can significantly improve the performance in detecting, segmenting, and classifying wildfires. In addition, we present the main research gaps and future directions for researchers to develop more accurate models in these fields.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".