The overall spatial metrics calculated for the final fire perimeter are shown in Figure 11. Panel (a) shows the frequency of hits, misses, and false alarms between the fire perimeter and simulations at 9 PM MST. As corroborated by the point-based analysis (Figures 8 and 9), 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, and the likelihood of overprediction is higher.