FireSenseNet: A Dual-Branch CNN with Cross-Attentive Feature Interaction for Next-Day Wildfire Spread Prediction

Next-day wildfire prediction requires models whose forecasts can be evaluated alongside the assumptions and historical evidence used in their computation. Although deep learning can learn spatial patterns from remote-sensing data, predictive performance alone does not establish physical fidelity or operational trustworthiness. This study investigates three modular augmentations for next-day active-fire prediction: wind- and slope-conditioned attention biases, physics-feature retrieval-augmented output correction, and fire conditioned dual-stream gating. The attention biases expose prescribed directional preferences, while the retrieval module selects historical tiles using a nine-dimensional environmental and fire-state descriptor and applies a learned correction to a frozen model's logits. The modules are evaluated across five backbones on the Next Day Wildfire Spread benchmark, using staged ablations, directional audits, retrieval perturbations, calibration measures, and computational comparisons. The three-seed mean F1 score and area under the precision--recall curve (AUC-PR) of a SwinUNETR model with all three augmentations are 0.4216 and 0.3673. Then, a mixed ensemble (two augmented architectures and one non-augmented architecture) model achieves 0.4292 and 0.3790. Benefits vary across architectures, and retrieval-related improvements in AUC-PR do not consistently translate into higher F1. The constructed wind bias aligns closely with input wind, but its alignment with observed next-day fire displacement is much weaker, distinguishing prior inspectability from predictive physical fidelity. The study contributes a framework for exposing and evaluating selected domain-informed components within wildfire prediction models. Together, the results presented show that predictive performance, operational trustworthiness, and computational practicality need not be competing objectives.

Wildfire decisions are made in hours, yet most learned spread models predict daily on targets including burned area. We propose FireGraphNet which formulates 12-hour growth as node classification on directed H3 graphs, with candidates ahead of the front and wind alignment, terrain, fuel continuity and barriers on edges. On satellite perimeters it achieves average precision 1.7-1.9x the strongest distance baseline on test California fires and 1.62x out of state. We show this skill comes from message passing rather than cell features or the aggregator, is highest on young fires in state, is carried deep along the wind by its edges, and is hidden by pooling. A convolutional network matches this ranking once trained on new growth, at worse calibration, so candidate construction, target definition, and aggregation shape conclusions about model skill. Editing fuel and barrier attributes reduces predicted spread more under guided than random placement, extending FireGraphNet to operational intervention analysis.

Wildfire spread is traditionally predicted using physics-based simulators, which are physically interpretable but whose cost increases with each additional ensemble member. We ask how well deep learning surrogates can reproduce these simulations at a fraction of this cost, training them on 10,584 fire spread simulations at 2m resolution for the Rectoret region in Catalonia, Spain. Four architectures are compared: a patch-based U-Net, a transfer-learned ResNet-50, a physics-informed network constrained by the wind-driven advection equation and a Swin-Unet transformer. Among the terrain and vegetation variables, only surface fuel load predicts burn probability with any strength (r = 0.27) and including it lowers prediction error by 21%. The remaining variables correlate weakly and are highly duplicative. Next, an experiment with saliency, occlusion and rotation demonstrates the models' learning. Convolutional models rely primarily on distance from the current fire front, while Swin-Unet assigns more weight to fuel and terrain, a finding also noted in an unrelated wildfire dataset. When applied without retraining to the second region, Pedriza, all three convolutional models still predict fire spread, losing accuracy by a small but systematic margin.