On the role of pre and post-processing in environmental data mining

The quality of discovered knowledge is highly depending on data quality. Unfortunately real data use to contain noise, uncertainty, errors, redundancies or even irrelevant information. The more complex is the reality to be analyzed, the higher the risk of getting low quality data. Knowledge Discovery from Databases (KDD) offers a global framework to prepare data in the right form to perform correct analyses. On the other hand, the quality of decisions taken upon KDD results, depend not only on the quality of the results themselves, but on the capacity of the system to communicate those results in an understandable form. Environmental systems are particularly complex and environmental users particularly require clarity in their results. In this paper some details about how this can be achieved are provided. The role of the pre and post processing in the whole process of Knowledge Discovery in environmental systems is discussed

Data mining as a tool for environmental scientists

Over recent years a huge library of data mining algorithms has been developed to tackle a variety of problems in fields such as medical imaging and network traffic analysis. Many of these techniques are far more flexible than more classical modelling approaches and could be usefully applied to data-rich environmental problems. Certain techniques such as Artificial Neural Networks, Clustering, Case-Based Reasoning and more recently Bayesian Decision Networks have found application in environmental modelling while other methods, for example classification and association rule extraction, have not yet been taken up on any wide scale. We propose that these and other data mining techniques could be usefully applied to difficult problems in the field. This paper introduces several data mining concepts and briefly discusses their application to environmental modelling, where data may be sparse, incomplete, or heterogenous

The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines

Algorithmic decision-making has become synonymous with inexplicable decision-making, but what makes algorithms so difficult to explain? This Article examines what sets machine learning apart from other ways of developing rules for decision-making and the problem these properties pose for explanation. We show that machine learning models can be both inscrutable and nonintuitive and that these are related, but distinct, properties. Calls for explanation have treated these problems as one and the same, but disentangling the two reveals that they demand very different responses. Dealing with inscrutability requires providing a sensible description of the rules; addressing nonintuitiveness requires providing a satisfying explanation for why the rules are what they are. Existing laws like the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as well as techniques within machine learning, are focused almost entirely on the problem of inscrutability. While such techniques could allow a machine learning system to comply with existing law, doing so may not help if the goal is to assess whether the basis for decision-making is normatively defensible. In most cases, intuition serves as the unacknowledged bridge between a descriptive account and a normative evaluation. But because machine learning is often valued for its ability to uncover statistical relationships that defy intuition, relying on intuition is not a satisfying approach. This Article thus argues for other mechanisms for normative evaluation. To know why the rules are what they are, one must seek explanations of the process behind a model’s development, not just explanations of the model itself

Forest cover estimation in Ireland using radar remote sensing: a comparative analysis of forest cover assessment methodologies

Quantification of spatial and temporal changes in forest cover is an essential component of forest monitoring programs. Due to its cloud free capability, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) is an ideal source of information on forest dynamics in countries with near-constant cloud-cover. However, few studies have investigated the use of SAR for forest cover estimation in landscapes with highly sparse and fragmented forest cover. In this study, the potential use of L-band SAR for forest cover estimation in two regions (Longford and Sligo) in Ireland is investigated and compared to forest cover estimates derived from three national (Forestry2010, Prime2, National Forest Inventory), one pan-European (Forest Map 2006) and one global forest cover (Global Forest Change) product. Two machine-learning approaches (Random Forests and Extremely Randomised Trees) are evaluated. Both Random Forests and Extremely Randomised Trees classification accuracies were high (98.1–98.5%), with differences between the two classifiers being minimal (<0.5%). Increasing levels of post classification filtering led to a decrease in estimated forest area and an increase in overall accuracy of SAR-derived forest cover maps. All forest cover products were evaluated using an independent validation dataset. For the Longford region, the highest overall accuracy was recorded with the Forestry2010 dataset (97.42%) whereas in Sligo, highest overall accuracy was obtained for the Prime2 dataset (97.43%), although accuracies of SAR-derived forest maps were comparable. Our findings indicate that spaceborne radar could aid inventories in regions with low levels of forest cover in fragmented landscapes. The reduced accuracies observed for the global and pan-continental forest cover maps in comparison to national and SAR-derived forest maps indicate that caution should be exercised when applying these datasets for national reporting