Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 284

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 access
Pham, Binh Thai, Jaafari, Abolfazl, Avand, Mohammadtaghi, Al-Ansari, Nadhir, Dinh Du, Tran, Yen, Hoang Phan Hai, Phong, Tran Van, Nguyen, Duy Huu, Le, Hiep Van, Mafi-Gholami, Davood, Prakash, Indra, Thi Thuy, Hoang, Tuyen, Tran Thi·2020·Symmetry

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/sym12061022

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 81 references

Cited by

See all 284

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.