Calibrated Weak Supervision for Post-Harvest Burned-Cropland Mapping Under Label Scarcity
Organizations: SRM Institute of Science & Technology
Abstract
Mapping post-harvest burned cropland is difficult when fires are small and fragmented and reliable labels are scarce. We developed a calibrated weak-supervision framework for Punjab, India, using Sentinel-2 spectral change, VIIRS active-fire context, and MODIS MCD64A1 as a coarse external calibration and agreement reference. Three pseudo-label recipes, five feature representations, and linear, tree-based, boosted, and neural classifiers were evaluated using nested district-held-out cross-validation over three seeds and five folds. NBR and dNBR were excluded from classifier inputs. The best configuration used the very-strict recipe, a multilayer perceptron, and the full optical feature set (mean Cohen's kappa 0.395, AUROC 0.753, F1 0.747, balanced accuracy 0.703); Random Forest, XGBoost, and LightGBM were practically tied. Higher agreement with held-out pseudo-labels did not establish improved label correctness or independent burned-area accuracy. For deployment, a Random Forest with the very-strict recipe and full optical features was retained. An externally calibrated threshold of 0.60 yielded district-level MODIS agreement of R-squared 0.636, a mapped-to-MODIS burned-area ratio of 1.005, and Spearman correlation of 0.779 with district fire counts. Pixel-level MODIS agreement remained modest (F1 0.205, kappa 0.093). Zero-shot transfer to Haryana was promising (mean kappa 0.641), but Punjab cross-year stability was weak, and Sentinel-1/Sentinel-2 feature concatenation did not improve the optical baseline. Optical observations ended before the seasonal fire context, limiting coverage of late burns. The framework supports district-scale burden assessment and hotspot screening, with limited support for exact scar boundaries or temporally stable annual mapping.
Figures & tables
| Recipe | d NBR | Near km | 12 | HN d | HN b | Far km | NDVI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Moderate | 0.18 | 3.0 | 0.06 | 120 | 8 | None | |
| Strict | 0.22 | 2.0 | 0.05 | 100 | 8 | None | |
| Very-strict | 0.28 | 1.5 | 0.04 | 80 | 10 |
| Set | Size | Composition | Analytical purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | 39 | Earlier, later, and delta values for 10 Sentinel-2 bands plus three indices | Full optical production representation |
| B | 13 | Delta-only optical variables | Tests whether change alone is sufficient |
| C | 26 | Earlier optical state plus delta variables | Retains baseline context with reduced redundancy |
| D | 33 | Full optical set without SWIR-related predictors | Primary circularity ablation |
| E | 45 | Set A plus Sentinel-1 VV/VH earlier, later, and delta | Simple optical–radar fusion test |
| Rank | Recipe | Model | Set | Mean | SD | AUC | Bal. acc. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Very-strict | MLP | A | 0.395 | 0.049 | 0.753 | 0.747 | 0.703 |
| 2 | Very-strict | RF | B | 0.395 | 0.053 | 0.747 | 0.744 | 0.703 |
| 3 | Very-strict | XGBoost | A | 0.394 | 0.053 | 0.740 | 0.747 | 0.703 |
| 4 | Very-strict | RF | A | 0.393 | 0.056 | 0.744 | 0.746 | 0.701 |
| 5 | Very-strict | LightGBM | B | 0.393 | 0.052 | 0.740 | 0.748 | 0.701 |
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Production classifier | Random Forest (300 trees) |
| Pseudo-label recipe | Very-strict |
| Feature set | A (39 optical variables) |
| Median internal CV threshold | 0.30 |
| Externally calibrated threshold | 0.60 |
| District vs. MODIS | 0.636 |
| Experiment | Configuration/protocol | Mean | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Haryana zero-shot | Punjab-trained RF/very-strict/A; thresholds 0.30, 0.40, 0.30; no Haryana fitting or calibration | 0.641 | Promising neighboring-state transfer |
| Punjab 2023 | Same seasonal framework | 0.662 | Stronger year-specific performance |
| Punjab 2024 | Primary experiment | 0.393 | Weaker year-specific performance |
| S1 + S2 fusion | Set E minus optical Set A | Simple concatenation did not improve performance |