The spread of infectious diseases is a highly complex spatiotemporal process, difficult to understand, predict, and effectively respond to. Machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) have achieved impressive results in other learning and prediction tasks; however, while many AI solutions are developed for disease prediction, only a few of them are adopted by decision-makers to support policy interventions. Among several issues preventing their uptake, AI methods are known to amplify the bias in the data they are trained on. This is especially problematic for infectious disease models that typically leverage large, open, and inherently biased spatiotemporal data. These biases may propagate through the modeling pipeline to decision-making, resulting in inequitable policy interventions. Therefore, there is a need to gain an understanding of how the AI disease modeling pipeline can mitigate biased input data, in-processing models, and biased outputs. Specifically, our vision is to develop a large-scale micro-simulation of individuals from which human mobility, population, and disease ground-truth data can be obtained. From this complete dataset—which may not reflect the real world—we can sample and inject different types of bias. By using the sampled data in which bias is known (as it is given as the simulation parameter), we can explore how existing solutions for fairness in AI can mitigate and correct these biases and investigate novel AI fairness solutions. Achieving this vision would result in improved trust in such models for informing fair and equitable policy interventions.
This content will become publicly available on March 1, 2025
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.
more » « less- PAR ID:
- 10512789
- Publisher / Repository:
- AMS Journals
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
- Volume:
- 105
- Issue:
- 3
- ISSN:
- 0003-0007
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- E567 to E583
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
Currently, there is a surge of interest in fair Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) research which aims to mitigate discriminatory bias in AI algorithms, e.g., along lines of gender, age, and race. While most research in this domain focuses on developing fair AI algorithms, in this work, we examine the challenges which arise when humans and fair AI interact. Our results show that due to an apparent conflict between human preferences and fairness, a fair AI algorithm on its own may be insufficient to achieve its intended results in the real world. Using college major recommendation as a case study, we build a fair AI recommender by employing gender debiasing machine learning techniques. Our offline evaluation showed that the debiased recommender makes fairer career recommendations without sacrificing its accuracy in prediction. Nevertheless, an online user study of more than 200 college students revealed that participants on average prefer the original biased system over the debiased system. Specifically, we found that perceived gender disparity is a determining factor for the acceptance of a recommendation. In other words, we cannot fully address the gender bias issue in AI recommendations without addressing the gender bias in humans. We conducted a follow-up survey to gain additional insights into the effectiveness of various design options that can help participants to overcome their own biases. Our results suggest that making fair AI explainable is crucial for increasing its adoption in the real world.more » « less
-
more » « less
Youth regularly use technology driven by artificial intelligence (AI). However, it is increasingly well-known that AI can cause harm on small and large scales, especially for those underrepresented in tech fields. Recently, users have played active roles in surfacing and mitigating harm from algorithmic bias. Despite being frequent users of AI, youth have been under-explored as potential contributors and stakeholders to the future of AI. We consider three notions that may be at the root of youth facing barriers to playing an active role in responsible AI, which are youth (1) cannot understand the technical aspects of AI, (2) cannot understand the ethical issues around AI, and (3) need protection from serious topics related to bias and injustice. In this study, we worked with youth (N = 30) in first through twelfth grade and parents (N = 6) to explore how youth can be part of identifying algorithmic bias and designing future systems to address problematic technology behavior. We found that youth are capable of identifying and articulating algorithmic bias, often in great detail. Participants suggested different ways users could give feedback for AI that reflects their values of diversity and inclusion. Youth who may have less experience with computing or exposure to societal structures can be supported by peers or adults with more of this knowledge, leading to critical conversations about fairer AI. This work illustrates youths' insights, suggesting that they should be integrated in building a future of responsible AI.
-
more » « less
Abstract The NSF AI Institute for Research on Trustworthy AI in Weather, Climate, and Coastal Oceanography (AI2ES) focuses on creating trustworthy AI for a variety of environmental and Earth science phenomena. AI2ES includes leading experts from AI, atmospheric and ocean science, risk communication, and education, who work synergistically to develop and test trustworthy AI methods that transform our understanding and prediction of the environment. Trust is a social phenomenon, and our integration of risk communication research across AI2ES activities provides an empirical foundation for developing user‐informed, trustworthy AI. AI2ES also features activities to broaden participation and for workforce development that are fully integrated with AI2ES research on trustworthy AI, environmental science, and risk communication.
-
more » « less
Abstract Recent calls have been made for equity tools and frameworks to be integrated throughout the research and design life cycle —from conception to implementation—with an emphasis on reducing inequity in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) applications. Simply stating that equity should be integrated throughout, however, leaves much to be desired as industrial ecology (IE) researchers, practitioners, and decision‐makers attempt to employ equitable practices. In this forum piece, we use a critical review approach to explain how socioecological inequities emerge in ML applications across their life cycle stages by leveraging the food system. We exemplify the use of a comprehensive questionnaire to delineate unfair ML bias across data bias, algorithmic bias, and selection and deployment bias categories. Finally, we provide consolidated guidance and tailored strategies to help address AI/ML unfair bias and inequity in IE applications. Specifically, the guidance and tools help to address sensitivity, reliability, and uncertainty challenges. There is also discussion on how bias and inequity in AI/ML affect other IE research and design domains, besides the food system—such as living labs and circularity. We conclude with an explanation of the future directions IE should take to address unfair bias and inequity in AI/ML. Last, we call for systemic equity to be embedded throughout IE applications to fundamentally understand domain‐specific socioecological inequities, identify potential unfairness in ML, and select mitigation strategies in a manner that translates across different research domains.
