The overall spatial metrics calculated for the final fire perimeter are shown in Figure \ref{333737}. Panel (A) shows the frequency of hits, misses, and false alarms between the fire perimeter and simulations at 9 PM MT. As corroborated by the point-based analysis (Figures \ref{951308} and \ref{399943}), the simulations favoring more spot fires (i.e. those with fewer neighbors, and lower total threshold, e.g. t5n[1-3]) display a higher frequency of hits, indicating there was more overlap between the observed and simulated fire areas, whereas the fewer the number of spot fires (e.g. t15n3, t[3,5,10]n5, t6n6), the lower the hit frequency, with CTRL having the least hits. Similarly, the miss frequency indicates that more of the observed perimeter was represented by the Fire-Spot simulations, with miss frequency increasing with decreasing number of spot fires. Conversely, the higher the number of spot fires, the higher the frequency of false alarms. This is because a higher number of simulated spot fires translates into a generally larger fire spread, so the tendency to overpredict is higher.