We develop the mathematical foundations of a framework that attributes a disturbance agent, namely wildfire, harvest, insect defoliation, windthrow, or drought, to each disturbance event detected in standardized satellite time-series change metrics. The attribution task is posed as a statistical decision problem on a feature space built from spectral-temporal descriptors, object geometry, terrain, and climate. Within this formulation we prove the Bayes optimality of the posterior-maximizing rule and of its cost-sensitive counterpart, a finite-sample generalization bound for the empirical-risk minimizer over a finite class, the variance-reduction identity that governs ensemble estimators together with a bias-variance decomposition, an ordering between the Gini and entropy impurities, the convexity and second-order optimality conditions of gradient-boosted trees, the gradient identities of the softmax and focal objectives, the efficiency, symmetry, and null-player properties of the Shapley attribution used for explanation, the order preservation of temperature scaling, and the distribution-free lower and upper coverage bounds of the marginal and class-conditional conformal predictors used for uncertainty. We further prove an unbiasedness and variance result for the design-based accuracy estimator and a decomposition of the cross-region transfer gap, together with an estimable form of that decomposition. Many of these results are specializations of established statistical-learning theory to the attribution setting; the contribution lies in their unified formulation on a standardized metric product, in the explicit statement of the assumptions under which each guarantee holds, and in a small number of new corollaries. The paper is theoretical: all results are established by proof and illustrated with synthetic numerical examples, no empirical forest-disturbance dataset is analysed, and the empirical transferability, calibration, and accuracy of an implemented system remain to be evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: