Prediction of fire danger index using a new machine learning based method to enhance power system resiliency against wildfires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Wildfires, which can cause significant damage to power systems, are mostly inevitable and unpredictable. Fire danger indexes, such as the Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI), measure the potential wildfire danger at a given time and location. Thus, by predicting these fire danger indexes in advance, power system operators can obtain valuable insight into the potential wildfire risks and can better be prepared to tackle the wildfires. However, due to dependency on weather conditions, these indexes usually have volatile time series, which make their prediction complex. Taking these facts into account, this paper, unlike previous approaches that predict fire danger indexes based on climatological models, develops a machine learning‐based forecast process to predict these indexes using the relevant weather data and past performance. To do this, first, a volatility analysis approach is presented to analyse the volatility level of the time series data of a fire danger index. Afterwards, an effective machine learning‐based forecast methodology using a new deep feature selection model is proposed to predict fire danger indexes. The developed forecast methodology is tested on the real‐world data of FFDI and FWI and is compared with several popular alternative methods reported in the literature.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".