Search Results

You are looking at 21 - 24 of 24 items for

  • Author or Editor: David John Gagne II x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Amy McGovern
,
Ann Bostrom
,
Marie McGraw
,
Randy J. Chase
,
David John Gagne II
,
Imme Ebert-Uphoff
,
Kate D. Musgrave
, and
Andrea Schumacher

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to improve performance across a wide range of Earth system prediction tasks. As with any application of AI, it is important for AI to be developed in an ethical and responsible manner to minimize bias and other effects. In this work, we extend our previous work demonstrating how AI can go wrong with weather and climate applications by presenting a categorization of bias for AI in the Earth sciences. This categorization can assist AI developers to identify potential biases that can affect their model throughout the AI development life cycle. We highlight examples from a variety of Earth system prediction tasks of each category of bias.

Open access
Mariana G. Cains
,
Christopher D. Wirz
,
Julie L. Demuth
,
Ann Bostrom
,
David John Gagne II
,
Amy McGovern
,
Ryan A. Sobash
, and
Deianna Madlambayan

Abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) methods are increasingly used to develop new guidance intended for operational use by forecasters, it is critical to evaluate whether forecasters deem the guidance trustworthy. Past trust-related AI research suggests that certain attributes (e.g., understanding how the AI was trained, interactivity, and performance) contribute to users perceiving the AI as trustworthy. However, little research has been done to examine the role of these and other attributes for weather forecasters. In this study, we conducted 16 online interviews with National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters to examine (i) how they make guidance use decisions and (ii) how the AI model technique used, training, input variables, performance, and developers as well as interacting with the model output influenced their assessments of trustworthiness of new guidance. The interviews pertained to either a random forest model predicting the probability of severe hail or a 2D convolutional neural network model predicting the probability of storm mode. When taken as a whole, our findings illustrate how forecasters’ assessment of AI guidance trustworthiness is a process that occurs over time rather than automatically or at first introduction. We recommend developers center end users when creating new AI guidance tools, making end users integral to their thinking and efforts. This approach is essential for the development of useful and used tools. The details of these findings can help AI developers understand how forecasters perceive AI guidance and inform AI development and refinement efforts.

Significance Statement

We used a mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative approach to understand how National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters 1) make guidance use decisions within their operational forecasting process and 2) assess the trustworthiness of prototype guidance developed using artificial intelligence (AI). When taken as a whole, our findings illustrate that forecasters’ assessment of AI guidance trustworthiness is a process that occurs over time rather than automatically and suggest that developers must center the end user when creating new AI guidance tools to ensure that the developed tools are useful and used.

Open access
Amy McGovern
,
Ryan Lagerquist
,
David John Gagne II
,
G. Eli Jergensen
,
Kimberly L. Elmore
,
Cameron R. Homeyer
, and
Travis Smith

Abstract

This paper synthesizes multiple methods for machine learning (ML) model interpretation and visualization (MIV) focusing on meteorological applications. ML has recently exploded in popularity in many fields, including meteorology. Although ML has been successful in meteorology, it has not been as widely accepted, primarily due to the perception that ML models are “black boxes,” meaning the ML methods are thought to take inputs and provide outputs but not to yield physically interpretable information to the user. This paper introduces and demonstrates multiple MIV techniques for both traditional ML and deep learning, to enable meteorologists to understand what ML models have learned. We discuss permutation-based predictor importance, forward and backward selection, saliency maps, class-activation maps, backward optimization, and novelty detection. We apply these methods at multiple spatiotemporal scales to tornado, hail, winter precipitation type, and convective-storm mode. By analyzing such a wide variety of applications, we intend for this work to demystify the black box of ML, offer insight in applying MIV techniques, and serve as a MIV toolbox for meteorologists and other physical scientists.

Full access
Amy McGovern
,
David John Gagne II
,
Christopher D. Wirz
,
Imme Ebert-Uphoff
,
Ann Bostrom
,
Yuhan Rao
,
Andrea Schumacher
,
Montgomery Flora
,
Randy Chase
,
Antonios Mamalakis
,
Marie McGraw
,
Ryan Lagerquist
,
Robert J. Redmon
, and
Taysia Peterson

Abstract

Many of our generation’s most pressing environmental science problems are wicked problems, which means they cannot be cleanly isolated and solved with a single “correct” answer. The NSF AI Institute for Research on Trustworthy AI in Weather, Climate, and Coastal Oceanography (AI2ES) seeks to address such problems by developing synergistic approaches with a team of scientists from three disciplines: environmental science (including atmospheric, ocean, and other physical sciences), artificial intelligence (AI), and social science including risk communication. As part of our work, we developed a novel approach to summer school, held from 27 to 30 June 2022. The goal of this summer school was to teach a new generation of environmental scientists how to cross disciplines and develop approaches that integrate all three disciplinary perspectives and approaches in order to solve environmental science problems. In addition to a lecture series that focused on the synthesis of AI, environmental science, and risk communication, this year’s summer school included a unique “trust-a-thon” component where participants gained hands-on experience applying both risk communication and explainable AI techniques to pretrained machine learning models. We had 677 participants from 63 countries register and attend online. Lecture topics included trust and trustworthiness (day 1), explainability and interpretability (day 2), data and workflows (day 3), and uncertainty quantification (day 4). For the trust-a-thon, we developed challenge problems for three different application domains: 1) severe storms, 2) tropical cyclones, and 3) space weather. Each domain had associated user persona to guide user-centered development.

Open access