Csilla Farkas

J. Schmidinger, S. Vogel, V. Barkov et al.

Digital soil mapping (DSM) relies on a broad pool of statistical methods, yet determining the optimal method for a given context remains challenging and contentious. Benchmarking studies on multiple datasets are needed to reveal strengths and limitations of commonly used methods. Existing DSM studies usually rely on a single dataset with restricted access, leading to incomplete and potentially misleading conclusions. To address these issues, we introduce an open-access dataset collection called Precision Liming Soil Datasets (LimeSoDa). LimeSoDa consists of 31 field- and farm-scale datasets from various countries. Each dataset has three target soil properties: (1) soil organic matter or soil organic carbon, (2) clay content and (3) pH, alongside a set of features. Features are dataset-specific and were obtained by optical spectroscopy, proximal- and remote soil sensing. All datasets were aligned to a tabular format and are ready-to-use for modeling. We demonstrated the use of LimeSoDa for benchmarking by comparing the predictive performance of four learning algorithms across all datasets. This comparison included multiple linear regression (MLR), support vector regression (SVR), categorical boosting (CatBoost) and random forest (RF). The results showed that although no single algorithm was universally superior, certain algorithms performed better in specific contexts. MLR and SVR performed better on high-dimensional spectral datasets, likely due to better compatibility with principal components. In contrast, CatBoost and RF exhibited considerably better performances when applied to datasets with a moderate number (< 20) of features. These benchmarking results illustrate that the performance of a method is highly context-dependent. LimeSoDa therefore provides an important resource for improving the development and evaluation of statistical methods in DSM.

Natabara Máté Gyöngyössy, Bernát Török, Csilla Farkas et al.

Regulatory frameworks for the use of AI are emerging. However, they trail behind the fast-evolving malicious AI technologies that can quickly cause lasting societal damage. In response, we introduce a pioneering Assistive AI framework designed to enhance human decision-making capabilities. This framework aims to establish a trust network across various fields, especially within legal contexts, serving as a proactive complement to ongoing regulatory efforts. Central to our framework are the principles of privacy, accountability, and credibility. In our methodology, the foundation of reliability of information and information sources is built upon the ability to uphold accountability, enhance security, and protect privacy. This approach supports, filters, and potentially guides communication, thereby empowering individuals and communities to make well-informed decisions based on cutting-edge advancements in AI. Our framework uses the concept of Boards as proxies to collectively ensure that AI-assisted decisions are reliable, accountable, and in alignment with societal values and legal standards. Through a detailed exploration of our framework, including its main components, operations, and sample use cases, the paper shows how AI can assist in the complex process of decision-making while maintaining human oversight. The proposed framework not only extends regulatory landscapes but also highlights the synergy between AI technology and human judgement, underscoring the potential of AI to serve as a vital instrument in discerning reality from fiction and thus enhancing the decision-making process. Furthermore, we provide domain-specific use cases to highlight the applicability of our framework.