OLDGABE — research log

What this log is. The research record for OLDGABE, a US-based wildfire detection product. Each entry carries a plain-language framing, a BLUF, the exact method and populations, a results table, a claim-status tag, a literature-alignment box, and load-bearing honest bounds — so a reader with access to the same public feeds (NASA FIRMS VIIRS/MODIS, NOAA GOES-ABI, NIFC IRWIN/perimeters) and the stated recipe can recreate the numbers. Measured, skeptical-first, negatives kept. Rigor pass: 2026-07-08. Comment on any entry below — challenge a number, add evidence, or suggest a check.

Does the CAUTION-recovery re-ranker actually beat the production tier scorer? — head-to-head + de-confounding

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: defensible (measured; 5-fold spatial CV; two independent truths)

The framing. OLDGABE's fusion stage sorts every candidate fire into tiers; the great majority land in a low-confidence CAUTION tier and are never surfaced. The question that had never been measured: among those CAUTION events, can a learned recovery model rank the genuine hidden fires better than the production tier/confidence scorer does?

BLUF. On the operationally meaningful metrics the recovery model decisively beats production. At an 80%-precision operating point it recovers 60.5% of confirmed real fires vs production's 9.5% (Truth1), and 27.2% vs 0% under a second, HMS-independent truth (Truth2). Production holds a small global-AUC edge on Truth1 (0.951 vs 0.936) — but that edge is a confound: production uses the NOAA HMS smoke channel, and Truth1 is 91.5% HMS-confirmed, so it is partly scoring HMS against HMS. When the truth is switched to an independent polar-satellite corroboration, production's AUC edge reverses (recovery 0.845 vs production 0.786).

Populations & truths (reproducible). Candidate set = every canonical event with event_corroboration_tier.tier='CAUTION' that has an event_ground_truth row (n = 197,325). Truth1 (multi-source) = event_ground_truth.confirmed (6,867 positive, 3.48%; for CAUTION this channel is 91.5% NOAA-HMS-confirmed). Truth2 (neutral polar) = a VIIRS/MODIS active-fire detection from a different canonical event within 5 km and −1..+14 days of the event's first detection (7,791 positive, 3.95%). The two truths overlap only partially (both-positive 1,753; Truth1-only 5,114; Truth2-only 6,038), so Truth2 is a genuine cross-check, not a relabelling.

Features (non-leaky, detection-time only). Evidence is joined excluding the confirmation channels IRWIN, HMS, SAR and S2. Per event: n_det, n_fam, max/mean_frp, max/mean_conf, span_h, n_days, max_ti4, ti4−ti5 contrast, frac_night, mean_pixel_area, max_ti5, abi_temp_k, abi_area, modis_brightness, mean_hour, fp_dist_km, frp_per_pixel. Model: gradient-boosted trees (HistGradientBoostingClassifier, class-weight balanced), scored out-of-fold under 5-fold GroupKFold grouped on 0.2° spatial cells (a held-out cell is never in training). The production scorer is the fixed tier_and_conf() confidence; its value is pinned at 0.02 for ~94% of CAUTION events (the GOES/ABI-only majority), which is why it cannot rank within the tier.

Result.

Truth1 (multi-source, HMS-heavy)AUCPR-AUCrecall@90%precall@80%p
recovery model (detection features)0.9360.7350.3790.605
production tier_and_conf0.9510.5440.0650.095
production indep-families0.5000.0000.000
production max-FRP0.7870.1610.0060.019
Truth2 (neutral polar, HMS-independent)AUCPR-AUCrecall@90%precall@80%p
recovery model (detection features)0.8450.5110.0640.272
production tier_and_conf0.7860.2730.0000.000

De-confounding (does the win survive removing the reporting channel?). Feature-group AUCs, per truth — month-only / geography-only (lat,lon) / detection-only / all:

truthmonth-onlygeo-onlydetection-onlyallsummer-share gap
Truth10.5770.9030.9360.9730.00
Truth20.5670.8770.8450.9320.00

Reads: (1) Season is not a confound — the candidate window is summer-only, so the summer-share of positives and of negatives is identical (gap = 0) and month-only ranking is near-chance (~0.57). (2) Geography is a large prior under both truths (0.903 vs 0.877), which already argues it is real fire geography rather than pure reporting bias — a reporting-only signal would predict the HMS truth far better than the polar truth. (3) Production's Truth1 AUC lead does not survive the neutral truth. The honest operating-point story is unchanged: production cannot deliver a high-precision set within CAUTION; the recovery model can.

Claim status: DEFENSIBLE (measured, out-of-fold, two independent truths).

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. Two well-established remote-sensing results are reproduced here on OLDGABE's own data: (a) a single geostationary quality/confidence flag is a weak within-tier ranker [1][2], and (b) independent multi-sensor corroboration is the strongest precision lever for active-fire detection [3]. A learned re-ranker that fuses detection-time features outperforms a hand-tuned tier threshold, consistent with the broader move from fixed thresholds to learned confidence in EO detection.

Where we are careful / diverge: AUC and PR-AUC disagree here because production's confidence is near-constant within CAUTION; we report the operating-point metric (recall at fixed precision) as primary because the use-case is surfacing a high-precision hidden set, not global ranking. We treat the HMS-heavy Truth1 as reporting-biased and lead with the polar Truth2.

What this does not claim: neither truth is a fire perimeter; Truth1 (HMS smoke) is spatially broad, Truth2 (polar overpass) is recall-limited. These are corroboration proxies.

Next research test: add geographic priors and re-validate on the neutral truth (see entry 0002); extend beyond the summer window before any surfacing.

References: [1] · [2] · [3]

Public data sources: NASA FIRMS (VIIRS/MODIS active fire) · NOAA GOES-R ABI · NIFC / IRWIN & perimeters (US ground truth). Every figure is reproducible from these public feeds plus the recipe above; no OLDGABE-internal state is required to recompute the model, only OLDGABE's aggregation of these feeds into per-event evidence.

Statistical reporting: ranking metrics are out-of-fold (5-fold GroupKFold, 0.2° cells) to remove in-sample optimism; base rates are stated with counts; both a reporting-biased and a reporting-independent truth are reported side by side rather than a single headline.

entry 0001

Adding geography to the recovery re-ranker — a defensible lift that grows under the neutral truth

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: defensible (measured; gated hidden shadow — NOT surfaced)

The framing. Entry 0001 showed geography alone ranks CAUTION fires surprisingly well. Wildfires cluster by fuel, terrain and climate, so a location prior should carry real signal — but a location prior can also just memorise where fires get reported. This entry adds geography to the recovery model and tests, honestly, whether the lift is real fire behaviour or a reporting/coverage artifact.

BLUF. Adding raw lat/lon to the detection feature set (recovery+geo) is a defensible improvement over both the detection-only recovery model and production, on both truths and every metric. The decisive de-confounding result: the geo lift is larger under the HMS-independent polar truth (+0.081 AUC) than under the reporting-heavy truth (+0.036 AUC). If geography were merely encoding reporting bias, its benefit would shrink when the truth stops depending on reporting — instead it grows. So the geographic signal is real fire geography.

What "geo" is (hard data bound). OLDGABE currently has no populated land-cover / fuel / terrain / climatology layer — the fire-weather cell table is empty, weather stations are a current snapshot (temporally invalid for historical events), and the raw detection JSON carries no geographic fields. So the only non-leaky geographic priors available are raw lat/lon + distance-to-known-false-source. A Truth1-only supplementary that adds an out-of-neighbourhood polar-thermal climatology density (a fuel/fire-proneness proxy; circular against Truth2, hence Truth1-only) lifts a little further (AUC 0.978, recall@80% 0.771), indicating headroom if a real independent fuel/climatology layer were ingested.

Method delta from entry 0001. Same populations (n = 202,005; the DB ingested more June/July events between runs), same non-leaky features, same 5-fold GroupKFold on 0.2° cells, same two truths. New models: recovery+geo = detection features + lat + lon; geo-only = lat,lon; all = detection + lat + lon + month. A June↔July temporal-transport split is added as the only distribution shift the data permits.

Result — head-to-head.

Truth1 (multi-source)AUCPR-AUCrecall@80%p
detection-only recovery (deployed)0.9380.7360.583
recovery + geo0.9730.7970.719
all (+month)0.9740.8030.722
geo-only0.901
production tier_and_conf0.9500.5390.092
Truth2 (neutral polar)AUCPR-AUCrecall@80%p
detection-only recovery (deployed)0.8600.5730.368
recovery + geo0.9410.6880.531
all (+month)0.9400.6860.526
geo-only0.886
production tier_and_conf0.8070.3250.000

The geo lift over detection-only is +0.036 AUC on Truth1 and +0.081 AUC on Truth2 — it grows under the neutral truth. recovery+geo also closes and reverses the one metric where production had led (Truth1 AUC, now 0.973 vs 0.950). Detection and geography are complementary: recovery+geo (0.941) beats both detection-only (0.860) and geo-only (0.886), so neither is redundant. Month adds nothing (all ≈ recovery+geo).

Result — temporal transport (train one month, test the other).

train → testtruthdetection-onlyrecovery+geoproduction
Jul → JunTruth10.9610.9850.963
Jul → JunTruth20.8760.9550.834
Jun → JulTruth10.8880.9340.941
Jun → JulTruth20.8400.9130.794

recovery+geo beats detection-only in all four cells and production in three of four (it loses only Jun→Jul on the HMS-confounded Truth1, by 0.007). Under the neutral truth it wins both directions by wide margins, and it stabilises the hard direction (Jun→Jul detection-only falls to 0.888; recovery+geo holds 0.934). Within the available window, the geographic prior transports across time and does not hurt.

Deployment status: GATED HIDDEN SHADOW — nothing surfaced. The recovery+geo scores are written to a hidden additive table event_caution_recovered_geo; a companion canary_meta row carries surface_allowed=0 and a DO_NOT_SURFACE_* marker file states the block. No OLDGABE map, API, tile, or user-facing output reads this table, and the daemon does not modify any production tier/score/confidence.

Surfacing is blocked until BOTH: (1) an off-season validation window passes, and (2) a held-out region validation passes. The geographic prior is precisely the component most exposed to seasonal and regional shift, and the entire evaluation to date is a two-month summer window (June+July 2026) with spatial overlap. It must be re-measured on the neutral polar truth in those regimes before any surfacing is considered.

Claim status: DEFENSIBLE (measured, out-of-fold, survives the neutral truth), with an explicit generalisation bound.

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. Wildfire occurrence is strongly conditioned by static geography — fuel, topography and climate — which is the basis of published fire-susceptibility / fire-danger mapping [4][5]; a learned location prior recovering much of that structure is expected. Our de-confounding design (measure the geographic lift against a truth that does not depend on the reporting channel) follows the standard caution that fire records carry reporting/observation bias [6].

Where we are careful / diverge: we deliberately do not ship the geo model, because a lat/lon prior fit on a single summer season can encode that season's/region's coverage and will not transport unexamined. We hold it as a hidden shadow behind an explicit off-season + held-out-region gate.

What this does not claim: that the geographic prior generalises across seasons or regions (untested — no off-season or out-of-region data exists yet); that raw lat/lon is a substitute for a real fuel/terrain layer (the climatology supplement shows further headroom if one is ingested).

Next research test: extend the window to an off-season month and a held-out region; re-grade recovery+geo on the neutral polar truth in each; ingest an independent fuel/land-cover/terrain layer (e.g. public land-cover / elevation) and measure marginal lift over raw lat/lon.

References: [3] · [4] · [5] · [6]

Public data sources: as entry 0001 (NASA FIRMS, NOAA GOES-ABI, NIFC/IRWIN & perimeters). Reproducible from the public feeds plus the stated features, label rules, model spec and CV protocol.

Statistical reporting: all model numbers are out-of-fold (5-fold GroupKFold, 0.2° cells); the geographic lift is reported against both a reporting-biased and a reporting-independent truth; the temporal-transport split is shown in both directions; the summer-only generalisation bound is stated as load-bearing, not a footnote.

entry 0002

The cross-sensor fusion safety-net: two independent satellites agreeing is 4.5× better than one

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: defensible (measured against NIFC IRWIN + perimeters)

The framing. Each satellite makes its own noisy fire hunches. OLDGABE's fusion daemon is the “two-witnesses” rule: it links detections of the same fire across sensors and only trusts a candidate strongly when independent instruments agree. This entry measures how much that agreement is worth.

BLUF. OLDGABE ingests ~1.80 million raw per-sensor fire detections. The fusion daemon cross-links them into 11,441 multi-sensor clusters and grades them. Requiring ≥2 independent CORE thermal sensors to agree (the “confirmed” tier, n=620) raises the IRWIN/perimeter match rate to 37.7%, versus 8.4% for a random raw single detection — a 4.5× precision lift — while GOES-only single-frame candidates (the “early” tier) match just 5.5%. Separately, the false-positive catalog + status logic demote 620,160 raw candidates (34.4%) to masked-fp so they never reach the map.

Result.

fused tiernavg confavg GOES framesIRWIN/perim match
confirmed (≥2 CORE agree)6200.88414.437.7% (234)
probable3,3400.5281.613.2% (442)
early (GOES-only)6,9820.051.35.5% (383)
weak (small n)1390.020.025.9% (36)
fp (flare/persistent)3600.001.910.6% (38)
raw single-detection baseline4,000 sampled8.4% (336)

Reproducibility detail. Feeds: NASA FIRMS VIIRS (N20/N21/SNPP) & MODIS, NOAA GOES-16/17/18/19 ABI (raw hotspots + Dozier subpixel + ADP smoke). Raw stream: fire_events = 1,802,709 rows (candidate 488,981; confirmed 401,917; confirmed_growth 75,886; pre-ignition 146,843; awaiting-confirmation 59,863; rx-burn 9,059; masked-fp 620,160). Fusion rule: time-ordered single-link clustering, same fire if ≤2 km & ≤48 h; CORE = {VIIRS, MODIS, S2, GOES}; confirmed = ≥2 CORE agree. Truth: NIFC IRWIN discovery points (823,535) + NIFC perimeters (115), match ≤10 km / ±14 days; raw baseline = uniform random sample of 4,000 fire_events centroids scored identically.

Claim status: DEFENSIBLE (measured; relative lift is the load-bearing claim).

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. Independent multi-sensor agreement is the canonical precision lever in active-fire remote sensing [3], and geostationary single-frame hotspots are abundant but low-precision [1] — matching the “early” tier's 5.5%. Persistent industrial/flare false sources are handled by a known-source catalog rather than single-frame radiometry [2].

What this does not claim: that 37.7% is the confirmed tier's absolute precision. IRWIN records only reported incidents, so an unmatched cluster is not necessarily false; the defensible statement is the relative lift (confirmed 37.7% vs single 8.4%). The daily-scorer (entry 0007) corroborates on a separate 24 h window.

Next research test: tighten the confirmed tier with a learned per-cluster confidence (entries 0001–0002) and measure precision at fixed recall.

References: [1] · [2] · [3]

Public data sources: NASA FIRMS · NOAA GOES-R ABI · NIFC IRWIN & perimeters.

entry 0003

Dozier subpixel strict-gate: a clean precision-for-recall trade, and why we keep it out of fusion

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: defensible (measured trade-off; not fused, by design)

The framing. The Dozier subpixel method estimates what fraction of a coarse GOES pixel is actually burning (p_subpixel). Tightening a threshold on that fraction is a dial between “catch everything, mostly noise” and “only the unambiguous, but almost nothing.”

BLUF. Gating on p_subpixel trades recall for precision cleanly: the IRWIN match rate rises from 2.8% (ungated) to ~18–27% at p_subpixel ≥ 0.005–0.01, but keeps only ~10–19% of Dozier's own positives. Because the high-precision operating point yields so few detections — and essentially none the polar sensors don't already provide — OLDGABE's fusion daemon deliberately excludes Dozier. A measured “keep it, but don't fuse it” decision, not an oversight.

Result (60,000 sampled Dozier detections; 1,681 IRWIN-positive = 2.8% base):

p_subpixel ≥detections keptprecision (IRWIN match)recall of Dozier positives
0.000 (ungated)60,0002.8%100%
0.00119,5994.9%57.6%
0.0051,70318.5%18.7%
0.01061927.0%9.9%
0.0504100% (n=4)0.2%

The deployed strict gate independently scores 26.3% precision (G19) / 48.3% (G18) at ~1.3% whole-fire recall in the daily-scorer (entry 0007) — consistent with this sweep.

Reproducibility detail. Feed: NOAA GOES-ABI Dozier subpixel retrieval (ABI-Dozier-Subpixel-G18/G19). Sample: 60,000 random Dozier evidence rows with a valid p_subpixel. Label: IRWIN/perimeter match ≤10 km / ±14 days. Precision = matched/kept per threshold; recall = matched-kept / matched-ungated (of Dozier's own positives, not of all fires). Truth: NIFC IRWIN + perimeters.

Claim status: DEFENSIBLE (measured trade-off).

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. Dozier-style subpixel retrieval recovers sub-pixel fires a raw threshold misses, at the cost of many marginal detections [7]; a strict confidence gate is the standard conversion to usable precision. Our fusion-exclusion reflects the same marginal-value logic — a source that adds precision but ~0 independent recall does not improve a multi-sensor confirmed tier.

What this does not claim: the recall column is of Dozier's own sampled positives, not all fires; whole-fire recall at the deployed gate is ~1.3% (entry 0007). Precision at 0.05 (n=4) is noise.

Next research test: revisit fusing gated Dozier as a third corroborator only where it uniquely covers a polar-overpass gap.

References: [7] · [3]

entry 0004

Negative result: GOES temporal persistence does not add defensible recall beyond polar

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: measured NEGATIVE / null (published for rigor)

The framing. A geostationary satellite stares at the same spot every few minutes, so a tempting idea is: “if GOES keeps seeing a hotspot in one place for hours, that persistence is extra evidence of a real fire the polar satellites missed between overpasses.” We tested it. It does not hold up.

BLUF. GOES near-match “recall” is saturated by coverage: 92.4% of IRWIN fire cells have some GOES detection within ~5 km, simply because GOES-ABI emits candidate hotspots almost everywhere over CONUS (its measured precision is only ~15% — 85% are not fire). Requiring temporal persistence (a cell seen in ≥3 distinct hours) only drops this coverage-inflated number (92.4% → 66.1%); it never adds genuine recall. The apparent 43.8% “marginal over polar” is the same coverage/false-positive floor, not independent detections. Conclusion: GOES temporal persistence is not a validated recall lever — OLDGABE's defensible cross-sensor recall comes from polar corroboration and fusion (entry 0003).

Result (45-day window; 2,592 IRWIN truth cells at 0.05°):

recall of IRWIN cells by…recallinterpretation
polar (VIIRS/MODIS) near-match27.2%genuine polar detections
any-GOES near-match92.4%coverage floor (not skill)
GOES-persistent (≥3 h) near-match66.1%persistence only subtracts coverage noise
GOES-persist caught, polar missed (marginal)43.8%confounded by the same coverage floor

Reproducibility detail. Feeds: NOAA GOES-ABI vs NASA FIRMS VIIRS/MODIS. Window: trailing 45 days. Grid: 0.05° cells. Persistence = a cell with GOES/ABI detections in ≥3 distinct hour-buckets. Recall = fraction of in-window IRWIN truth cells with a qualifying detection in the 3×3 neighbourhood. Marginal = IRWIN cells covered by GOES-persistent but not polar. Truth: NIFC IRWIN. The confound is explicit: at GOES's ~15% precision, near-match recall measures coverage density, not detection.

Claim status: NEGATIVE / NULL (honest; not adopted).

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. Geostationary active-fire products are high-volume and low-precision [1][8]; near-match recall over a dense candidate stream measures coverage, not skill (the “information floor”). Persistence has value for precision (rejecting transient glints), but our test shows it does not manufacture recall beyond polar.

What this does not claim: that GOES persistence is useless — it is a precision/timeliness signal elsewhere. This entry only refutes the specific claim that persistence adds independent recall. A stricter per-detection truth (not cell coverage) would be needed for a fully fair recall test.

Next research test: score GOES persistence as a precision gate on the “early” fused tier rather than a recall source.

References: [1] · [8] · [3]

entry 0005

Wildfire-camera smoke detection: highest precision of any source, but coverage/visibility-bound

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: measured; bound-limited (no proven standalone field value yet)

The framing. OLDGABE runs a smoke/flame classifier on public wildfire-camera frames and, when two cameras see the same plume, triangulates the bearings into a map location. Cameras see smoke a satellite can't — but only where a camera is pointed, in daylight, through clear air, within range.

BLUF. When a camera fires on a fire IRWIN also records, it is usually right — daily-scorer precision 66.7%, the highest of any single OLDGABE source. But it matches only 1.2% of IRWIN fires: coverage and visibility (line-of-sight, daylight, haze, range) are the binding constraint, not the classifier. Honest status: a high-precision corroborator where cameras can see, with no proven standalone field value yet at network scale.

Result (daily-scorer, vs IRWIN 10 nm / 24 h):

metricvalue
CAM-SMOKE precision66.7% (38 / 57 matched)
CAM-SMOKE recall of IRWIN fires1.2%
smoke-evidence rows on file480,026
two-camera triangulated fires31

Reproducibility detail. Feed: public wildfire-camera networks (frame grabs). Pipeline: per-frame smoke/flame classifier → cam_smoke_evidence (480,026 rows: mostly baseline sweeps + fire-triggered checks) → two-camera bearing intersection → cam_triangulated_fires (31). Scoring: OLDGABE daily-scorer matches CAM-SMOKE detections to NIFC IRWIN at 10 nm / 24 h (run 18, 2026-07-08). Precision = tp/(tp+fp); recall = tp/(IRWIN incidents in window).

Claim status: MEASURED, bound-limited.

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. Ground/tower camera smoke detection is high-precision within line-of-sight but coverage- and visibility-limited, and multi-camera triangulation is the standard geolocation method [9]. Our numbers reproduce that profile: excellent precision, small recall.

What this does not claim: any standalone field value — recall is coverage/visibility-limited, only 57 camera detections matched an IRWIN incident in the scored window, and n=31 triangulations is too few to quote a geolocation accuracy. The defensible role today is corroboration, not primary detection.

Next research test: measure triangulation geolocation error against matched IRWIN coordinates once n is larger; quantify recall vs camera viewshed coverage explicitly.

References: [9]

entry 0006

Per-sensor scorecard vs NIFC IRWIN — what each US datalink actually contributes

Date: 2026-07-08   Status: defensible (OLDGABE's own daily replay scorer)

The framing. Rather than argue which feed matters, OLDGABE runs a daily replay scorer that matches every sensor's detections to NIFC IRWIN ground truth and records precision, recall and count per source. This entry is that scorecard, unedited.

BLUF. Polar VIIRS is the best single recall+precision workhorse; the fused OLDGABE output leads recall (72.4%); cameras lead precision (66.7%); GOES-ABI is high-volume/low-precision; SAR and Sentinel-2 SWIR contributed nothing in this window. This is the empirical basis for weighting the fusion daemon (entry 0003) toward polar + agreement.

Result (daily-scorer run 18, 24 h window ending 2026-07-08, match 10 nm / 24 h vs IRWIN):

sourceprecisionrecalltpevidence n
OLDGABE-EVENTS (fused output)18.2%72.4%3,35518,394
HMS (smoke analysis)16.0%69.2%6,90643,214
VIIRS-N2032.0%58.7%3,65511,431
VIIRS-NPP20.8%31.3%1,2766,144
VIIRS-N2119.7%26.6%1,0125,150
MODIS27.9%22.2%9013,224
ABI-ADP-Smoke-G198.8%24.1%7218,174
ABI-ADP-Smoke-G1826.0%24.2%8583,298
GOES19-ABI15.8%14.7%5213,304
GOES18-ABI39.8%14.6%5281,328
ABI-Dozier-Subpixel-G1848.3%1.3%4287
ABI-Dozier-Subpixel-G1926.3%1.3%42160
CAM-SMOKE66.7%1.2%3857
S1-SAR-BurnScar / S2-SWIR-Hotspot0.0%00

Reproducibility detail. Artifact: OLDGABE te_runs/te_metrics_by_source, run_id 18, run_kind daily-scorer, config {match_radius_nm: 10, match_window_h: 24}, window 2026-07-07→2026-07-08. Per source: tp = detections matched to an IRWIN incident within 10 nm / 24 h; fp = unmatched; fn = IRWIN incidents with no matching detection from that source; precision = tp/(tp+fp); recall = tp/(tp+fn). Feeds: NASA FIRMS VIIRS/MODIS, NOAA GOES-ABI (raw + Dozier + ADP smoke), NOAA HMS, public cameras, Sentinel-1/2. Truth: NIFC IRWIN.

Claim status: DEFENSIBLE (own measured artifact, dated).

Literature alignment. Verdict: AGREEMENT. The ranking — polar VIIRS/MODIS as accurate workhorses, geostationary as timely-but-noisy, fusion maximising recall — matches the established complementarity of polar and geostationary fire products [1][3][8].

What this does not claim: IRWIN at 10 nm / 24 h is a strict, sparse truth (reported incidents only), so absolute precision is a lower bound — many unmatched detections are real fires IRWIN never logged. Single 24 h window; lead-time medians omitted here as noisy. SAR/S2 zeros reflect this window's cadence, not a permanent verdict.

Next research test: aggregate the scorecard across many daily runs with confidence intervals; add a precision-at-fixed-recall column per source.

References: [1] · [3] · [8]

entry 0007

References

  1. Schroeder, W. et al. (2014). The New VIIRS 375 m active fire detection data product. Remote Sensing of Environment 143, 85–96.
  2. Giglio, L. et al. (2016). The Collection 6 MODIS active fire detection algorithm and fire products. Remote Sensing of Environment 178, 31–41.
  3. Schroeder, W. et al. (2008). Validation of GOES and MODIS active fire detection products. Remote Sensing of Environment 112, 2711–2726.
  4. Jain, P. et al. (2020). A review of machine learning applications in wildfire science and management. Environmental Reviews 28(4), 478–505.
  5. Rodrigues, M. & de la Riva, J. (2014). An insight into machine-learning algorithms to model fire susceptibility. Environmental Modelling & Software 57, 192–201.
  6. Short, K. C. (2014). A spatial database of wildfires in the United States (FPA-FOD): reporting completeness and bias considerations. Earth System Science Data 6, 1–27.
  7. Dozier, J. (1981). A method for satellite identification of surface temperature fields of subpixel resolution. Remote Sensing of Environment 11, 221–229.
  8. Schmidt, C. C. et al. (2012). The GOES-R Advanced Baseline Imager Fire/Hot Spot Characterization (FDC) algorithm. NOAA/NESDIS ATBD.
  9. Govil, K. et al. (2020). Preliminary results from a wildfire detection system using deep learning on remote camera networks. Remote Sensing 12(1), 166.