4.7 Article

Toward a Collective Agenda on AI for Earth Science Data Analysis

期刊

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/MGRS.2020.3043504

关键词

Earth; Data analysis; Geology; Games; Data models; Sparks; Artificial intelligence

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) [ERC-2016-StG-714087]
  2. Helmholtz Association through the Helmholtz Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Unit
  3. Helmholtz Association through Helmholtz Excellent Professorship Data Science in Earth Observation-Big Data Fusion for Urban Research
  4. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
  5. ERC under the ERC-SyG-2019 USMILE project [855187]
  6. National Science Foundation CAREER Award [IIS-1553116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fields of geosciences, remote sensing, and artificial intelligence have become closer in recent years, offering great opportunities to improve modeling and understanding of the Earth system. However, there is a need to challenge disciplinary comfort zones and inspire researchers to collaborate for real advancements in these areas.
In past years, we have witnessed the fields of geosciences and remote sensing and artificial intelligence (AI) become closer. Thanks to the massive availability of observational data, improved simulations, and algorithmic advances, these disciplines have found common objectives and challenges to help advance the modeling and understanding of the Earth system. Despite such great opportunities, we have also observed a worrisome tendency to remain in disciplinary comfort zones, applying recent advances from AI on well-resolved remote sensing problems. Here, we take a position on the research directions for which we think the interface between these fields will have the most significant impact and become potential game changers. In our declared agenda for AI in Earth sciences, we aim to inspire researchers, especially the younger generations, to tackle these challenges for a real advance of remote sensing and the geosciences.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据