The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods for Forest Fire Modeling and Prediction
Open accessAbstract
Predicting and mapping fire susceptibility is a top research priority in fire-prone forests worldwide. This study evaluates the abilities of the Bayes Network (BN), Naïve Bayes (NB), Decision Tree (DT), and Multivariate Logistic Regression (MLP) machine learning methods for the prediction and mapping fire susceptibility across the Pu Mat National Park, Nghe An Province, Vietnam. The modeling methodology was formulated based on processing the information from the 57 historical fires and a set of nine spatially explicit explanatory variables, namely elevation, slope degree, aspect, average annual temperate, drought index, river density, land cover, and distance from roads and residential areas. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and seven other performance metrics, the models were validated in terms of their abilities to elucidate the general fire behaviors in the Pu Mat National Park and to predict future fires. Despite a few differences between the AUC values, the BN model with an AUC value of 0.96 was dominant over the other models in predicting future fires. The second best was the DT model (AUC = 0.94), followed by the NB (AUC = 0.939), and MLR (AUC = 0.937) models. Our robust analysis demonstrated that these models are sufficiently robust in response to the training and validation datasets change. Further, the results revealed that moderate to high levels of fire susceptibilities are associated with ~19% of the Pu Mat National Park where human activities are numerous. This study and the resultant susceptibility maps provide a basis for developing more efficient fire-fighting strategies and reorganizing policies in favor of sustainable management of forest resources.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118548387 · Cited by 13,861
Friedman, N., Geiger, D., & Goldszmidt, M. (1997) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007465528199 · Cited by 4,742
Bowman, D. M. J. S., Balch, J. K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W. J., Carlson, J. M., Cochrane, M. A., D’Antonio, C. M., DeFries, R. S., Doyle, J. C., Harrison, S. P., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1163886 · Cited by 3,351
A Practical Approach to Feature Selection
Kira, K., & Rendell, L. A. (1992) · Machine Learning Proceedings 1992 · doi:10.1016/b978-1-55860-247-2.50037-1 · Cited by 2,978
Estimating attributes: Analysis and extensions of RELIEF
Kononenko, I. (1994) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-57868-4_57 · Cited by 2,958
Large wildfire trends in the western United States, 1984–2011
Dennison, P. E., Brewer, S. C., Arnold, J. D., & Moritz, M. A. (2014) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2014gl059576 · Cited by 1,322
21st Century drought-related fires counteract the decline of Amazon deforestation carbon emissions
Aragão, L. E. O. C., Anderson, L. O., Fonseca, M. G., Rosan, T. M., Vedovato, L. B., Wagner, F. H., Silva, C. V. J., Silva Junior, C. H. L., Arai, E., Aguiar, A. P., et al. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-02771-y · Cited by 940
Use of NDVI and Land Surface Temperature for Drought Assessment: Merits and Limitations
Karnieli, A., Agam, N., Pinker, R. T., Anderson, M., Imhoff, M. L., Gutman, G. G., Panov, N., & Goldberg, A. (2010) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2009jcli2900.1 · Cited by 880
Oliveira, S., Oehler, F., San-Miguel-Ayanz, J., Camia, A., & Pereira, J. M. C. (2012) · Forest Ecology and Management · doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2012.03.003 · Cited by 747
Cited by
Sharma, A., Mukhopadhyay, T., Rangappa, S. M., Siengchin, S., & Kushvaha, V. (2022) · Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering · doi:10.1007/s11831-021-09700-9 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Pham, B. T., Jaafari, A., Avand, M., Al-Ansari, N., Dinh Du, T., Yen, H. P. H., Phong, T. V., Nguyen, D. H., Le, H. V., Mafi-Gholami, D., Prakash, I., Thi Thuy, H., & Tuyen, T. T.
- Venue
- Symmetry
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2020-06-17
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1022
- ISSN
- 2073-8994 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3034300825
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 81
- FWCI
- 13.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods for Forest Fire Modeling and Prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/sym12061022
- The paper
- Pham, B. T., Jaafari, A., Avand, M., Al-Ansari, N., Dinh Du, T., Yen, H. P. H., Phong, T. V., Nguyen, D. H., Le, H. V., Mafi-Gholami, D., Prakash, I., Thi Thuy, H., & Tuyen, T. T. (2020). Performance Evaluation of Machine Learning Methods for Forest Fire Modeling and Prediction. Symmetry. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12061022
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.