Wind Field Reconstruction and Uncertainty Quantification at Wildland Fires Based on Sparse UAV-based Wind Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfire behaviour is highly influenced by weather, fuel and topography, resulting in highly dynamic propagation patterns. However, a detailed physics-based simulation of this dynamic behaviour can be computationally expensive and time-consuming even on small scales, particularly when accounting for fire-wind interactions. To overcome this limitation, a series of models are developed to provide rapid estimations of fire behaviour by simplifying or ignoring certain physical laws–albeit at the cost of accuracy. These models are often decoupled from the atmosphere to reduce the computational demands, which leads to increased uncertainty in their predictions. Additionally, efforts to improve model reliability by incorporating near-surface wind fields into the model using statistical and dynamical downscaling methods face two challenges, including the failure to account for fire-wind interaction and the high computational demand of dynamical methods. Consequently, this study introduces a novel framework that combines UAV-swarm-based wind and temperature measurements with convolutional neural networks (CNN), to estimate the fire-induced near-surface wind field, aiming to capture the fire-wind interaction and its effect on the fire propagation dynamics in a grassland fire without solving the complete set of Navier-Stokes equations. The framework includes a two-step process for wind field estimation, including (i) super-resolution reconstruction of the high-altitude wind field from sparse UAV-based measurements, and (ii) high-resolution estimation of the near- surface wind field based on the reconstructed high-altitude wind field. The estimated wind field could then be fed into decoupled wildfire models to replicate the effect of fire-wind interaction on fire propagation. Given the extensive data requirement of deep learning models and lack of access to real-world measured data, this study utilizes synthetic data generated from executing 150 three- dimensional Large Eddy simulations of wildfire propagation in grasslands with varying wind speeds, terrain slopes, vegetation types, and height. The accuracy and uncertainty levels of the trained models are evaluated for different UAV swarm sizes, ranging from 100 to 9 UAVs, as well as various sampling strategies, focusing on the spatial distribution of UAVs above the field. Additionally, the models’ reliability are tested under different wind measurement errors by UAV-mounted sensors, varying from 0 to 50%. The obtained results indicate that the developed framework is capable of providing accurate estimations from the near-surface wind field, even under scenarios with a limited number of UAVs, demonstrated through average MAE and RMSE values equal to 0.849 and 1.323 for the U, 0.672 and 1.022 for the V, and 0.551 and 1.01 for the W component of velocity. Uncertainty analysis indicates that even though the average performance of the model remains stable, model uncertainty increases with reducing the size of the swarm. Finally, the investigation of the effect of wind measurement errors on model accuracy and reliability indicates that increased noise levels significantly impact the model’s accuracy and uncertainty. However, increasing the swarm size helps to mitigate the effects of measurement noise to a certain extent.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".