Forecasting Daily Fire Radiative Energy Using Data Driven Methods and Machine Learning Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increasing impacts of wildfires on Western US air quality highlights the need for forecasts of smoke emissions based on dynamic modeled wildfires. This work utilizes knowledge of weather, fuels, topography, and firefighting, combined with machine learning and other statistical methods, to generate 1‐ and 2‐day forecasts of fire radiative energy (FRE). The models are trained on data covering 2019 and 2021 and evaluated on data for 2020. For the 1‐day (2‐day) forecasts, the random forest model shows the most skill, explaining 48% (25%) of the variance in observed daily FRE when trained on all available predictors compared to the 2% (<0%) of variance explained by persistence for the extreme fire year of 2020. The random forest model also shows improved skill in forecasting day‐to‐day increases and decreases in FRE, with 28% (39%) of observed increase (decrease) days predicted, and increase (decrease) days are identified with 62% (60%) accuracy. Error in the random forest increases with FRE, and the random forest tends toward persistence under severe fire weather. Sensitivity analysis shows that near‐surface weather and the latest observed FRE contribute the most to the skill of the model. When the random forest model was trained on subsets of the training data produced by agencies (e.g., the Canadian or US Forest Services), comparable if not better performance was achieved (1‐day R2 = 0.39–0.48, 2‐day R2 = 0.13–0.34). FRE is used to compute emissions, so these results demonstrate potential for improved fire emissions forecasts for air quality models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".