mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Post-Wildfire Debris-Flow Prediction

arXiv 2608.05265 ↗First posted 5 Aug 2026cs.LG cs.CVcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Prediction of post-wildfire debris flows is critical for mitigating hazards to communities, infrastructure, and resources during intense rainfall in recently burned areas. However, identifying reliable machine learning models is complicated by overlapping debris-flow and non-debris-flow events in feature space, the need for model interpretability, and limited training data. This paper addresses these challenges through a systematic evaluation of machine learning models in terms of predictive performance, feature importance, and synthetic data augmentation. Using basin-scale observations of post-wildfire debris-flow events across the western United States, we compare 15 models, including the Tabular Prior-Data Fitted Network (TabPFN). Repeated stratified cross-validation shows that TabPFN achieves the highest unaugmented performance with a threat score of 0.637, closely followed by the best tree-based models. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) are used to identify the features driving predictions, revealing that short-duration rainfall intensity and storm accumulation consistently rank highest, while burn severity and terrain features contribute less. We further evaluate synthetic data augmentation using TabPFN-generated samples to address the scarcity of debris-flow observations. Synthetic augmentation improves the performance of all models except CNN, with the largest mean threat score increase of +0.041 among the deep learning models. By combining rigorous model benchmarking, interpretable feature analysis, and synthetic data augmentation, this work provides a comprehensive framework for improving post-wildfire debris-flow prediction.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 59 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Aug 2026.

Builds on

15 of 59 references.

References · 15

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  5. 2023Mamba: Linear-Time Sequence Modeling with Selective State Spacescited by 4,616
  6. 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,455
  7. 2019Modeling Tabular data using Conditional GANcited by 695
  8. 2016Hyperband: A Novel Bandit-Based Approach to Hyperparameter Optimizationcited by 688
  9. 2022TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Secondcited by 643
  10. 2021Transformers Can Do Bayesian Inferencecited by 338
  11. 2022Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on tabular data?cited by 198
  12. 2016Time for a change: a tutorial for comparing multiple classifiers through Bayesian analysiscited by 92
3 more
  1. 2019Explainable AI for Trees: From Local Explanations to Global Understandingcited by 64
  2. 2025xRFM: Accurate, scalable, and interpretable feature learning models for tabular datacited by 14
  3. 2026Knowledge-Data Dually Driven Paradigm for Accurate Landslide Susceptibility Prediction under Data-Scarce Conditions Using Geomorphic Priors and Tabular Foundation Modelcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.