An Operational Global Probability-of-Fire (PoF) Forecast : Can we predict extreme events?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires have widespread effects on local ecosystems, communities, air quality, and global atmospheric conditions. Accurate wildfire forecasts can be used by local communities and agencies to manage and respond to wildfires effectively. As such, it is essential these predictions are not only accurate but are accessible in real-time and provide sufficient advanced notice to ensure successful actions can be taken. Existing systems typically use fire danger indices to predict landscape flammability, based on meteorological forecasts alone, often using little or no direct information on land surface or vegetation state. Here, we use a vegetation characteristic model, weather forecasts and a data-driven machine learning approach to construct a global daily ~9 km resolution Probability of Fire (PoF) model operating at multiple lead times. The PoF model outperforms existing indices, providing accurate forecasts of fire activity up to 10 days in advance, and in some cases up to 30 days and has been deployed operationally at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF). The model can also be used to investigate historical shifts in regional fire patterns. Furthermore, the underlying data driven approach allows PoF to be used for fire attribution, isolating key variables for specific fire events or for looking at the relationships between variables and fire occurrence. The 2023 Canadian wildfire season is used as a test case to assess model performance at predicting extreme wildfire events.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".