Extreme Climate Drivers and Their Interactions in Lightning-Ignited Fires: Insights from Machine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lightning is the primary natural cause of wildfires in mid- to high-latitude forests, and it is increasing in frequency under climate change. Traditional fire danger forecasts, reliant on standard meteorological data, often fail to capture extreme events and future risk. To address this issue, we integrate extreme climate indices with meteorological, vegetation, soil, and topographic data, and apply four machine learning methods to build probabilistic models for lightning fire occurrence. The results show that incorporating extreme climate indices significantly improves model performance. Among the models, XGBoost achieved the highest accuracy (87.4%) and AUC (0.903), clearly outperforming traditional fire weather indices (accuracy 60%–71%). Model interpretation with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) further revealed the driving mechanisms and interaction effects of extreme factors. Extreme temperature and precipitation indices contributed nearly 60% to fire occurrence, with growing season length (GSL), minimum of daily maximum temperature (TXn), diurnal temperature range (DTR), and warm spell duration index (WSDI) identified as key drivers. In contrast, heavy precipitation indices exerted a suppressing effect. Compound hot and dry conditions amplified fuel aridity and markedly increased ignition probability. This interpretable framework improves short-term lightning fire prediction and offers quantitative support for risk warning and resource allocation in a warming climate.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".