On the compatibility of established methods with emerging artificial intelligence and machine learning methods for disaster risk analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS Risk Analysis Pub Date : 2024-09-20 DOI:10.1111/risa.17640
Shital Thekdi, Unal Tatar, Joost Santos, Samrat Chatterjee
{"title":"On the compatibility of established methods with emerging artificial intelligence and machine learning methods for disaster risk analysis.","authors":"Shital Thekdi, Unal Tatar, Joost Santos, Samrat Chatterjee","doi":"10.1111/risa.17640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is growing interest in leveraging advanced analytics, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), for disaster risk analysis (RA) applications. These emerging methods offer unprecedented abilities to assess risk in settings where threats can emerge and transform quickly by relying on \"learning\" through datasets. There is a need to understand these emerging methods in comparison to the more established set of risk assessment methods commonly used in practice. These existing methods are generally accepted by the risk community and are grounded in use across various risk application areas. The next frontier in RA with emerging methods is to develop insights for evaluating the compatibility of those risk methods with more recent advancements in AI/ML, particularly with consideration of usefulness, trust, explainability, and other factors. This article leverages inputs from RA and AI experts to investigate the compatibility of various risk assessment methods, including both established methods and an example of a commonly used AI-based method for disaster RA applications. This article utilizes empirical evidence from expert perspectives to support key insights on those methods and the compatibility of those methods. This article will be of interest to researchers and practitioners in risk-analytics disciplines who leverage AI/ML methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":21472,"journal":{"name":"Risk Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Risk Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17640","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICS, INTERDISCIPLINARY APPLICATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is growing interest in leveraging advanced analytics, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), for disaster risk analysis (RA) applications. These emerging methods offer unprecedented abilities to assess risk in settings where threats can emerge and transform quickly by relying on "learning" through datasets. There is a need to understand these emerging methods in comparison to the more established set of risk assessment methods commonly used in practice. These existing methods are generally accepted by the risk community and are grounded in use across various risk application areas. The next frontier in RA with emerging methods is to develop insights for evaluating the compatibility of those risk methods with more recent advancements in AI/ML, particularly with consideration of usefulness, trust, explainability, and other factors. This article leverages inputs from RA and AI experts to investigate the compatibility of various risk assessment methods, including both established methods and an example of a commonly used AI-based method for disaster RA applications. This article utilizes empirical evidence from expert perspectives to support key insights on those methods and the compatibility of those methods. This article will be of interest to researchers and practitioners in risk-analytics disciplines who leverage AI/ML methods.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
灾害风险分析中既有方法与新兴人工智能和机器学习方法的兼容性。
人们对利用先进的分析技术,包括人工智能(AI)和机器学习(ML),进行灾害风险分析(RA)的兴趣与日俱增。这些新兴方法通过数据集的 "学习",为在威胁可能迅速出现和转变的环境中评估风险提供了前所未有的能力。有必要将这些新兴方法与实践中常用的一系列更成熟的风险评估方法进行比较,以了解这些方法。这些现有方法已被风险界普遍接受,并在各个风险应用领域得到广泛应用。风险评估与新兴方法的下一个前沿领域是开发评估这些风险方法与人工智能/ML 最新进展的兼容性的见解,特别是考虑到有用性、信任度、可解释性和其他因素。本文利用风险评估和人工智能专家的意见,研究了各种风险评估方法的兼容性,包括成熟的方法和一种常用的基于人工智能的灾害风险评估应用方法。本文利用来自专家观点的经验证据来支持对这些方法及其兼容性的关键见解。利用人工智能/ML 方法的风险分析学科的研究人员和从业人员会对本文感兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Risk Analysis
Risk Analysis 数学-数学跨学科应用
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
183
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis is ranked among the top 10 journals in the ISI Journal Citation Reports under the social sciences, mathematical methods category, and provides a focal point for new developments in the field of risk analysis. This international peer-reviewed journal is committed to publishing critical empirical research and commentaries dealing with risk issues. The topics covered include: • Human health and safety risks • Microbial risks • Engineering • Mathematical modeling • Risk characterization • Risk communication • Risk management and decision-making • Risk perception, acceptability, and ethics • Laws and regulatory policy • Ecological risks.
期刊最新文献
Benchmark dose modeling for epidemiological dose-response assessment using case-control studies. The lasting effect of the Romantic view of nature: How it influences perceptions of risk and the support of symbolic actions against climate change. The exposure of nonhuman living organisms to mobile communication emissions: A survey to establish European stakeholders' policy option preferences. Research gaps and priorities for quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). Pairwise summation as a method for the additive combination of probabilities in qualitative risk assessments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1