Abstract
As an increasing number of machine learning (ML) products enter the research-to-operations (R2O) pipeline, researchers have anecdotally noted a perceived hesitancy by operational forecasters to adopt this relatively new technology. One explanation often cited in the literature is that this perceived hesitancy derives from the complex and opaque nature of ML methods. Because modern ML models are trained to solve tasks by optimizing a potentially complex combination of mathematical weights, thresholds, and nonlinear cost functions, it can be difficult to determine how these models reach a solution from their given input. However, it remains unclear to what degree a model’s transparency may influence a forecaster’s decision to use that model or if that impact differs between ML and more traditional (i.e., non-ML) methods. To address this question, a survey was offered to forecaster and researcher participants attending the 2021 NOAA Hazardous Weather Testbed (HWT) Spring Forecasting Experiment (SFE) with questions about how participants subjectively perceive and compare machine learning products to more traditionally derived products. Results from this study revealed few differences in how participants evaluated machine learning products compared to other types of guidance. However, comparing the responses between operational forecasters, researchers, and academics exposed notable differences in what factors the three groups considered to be most important for determining the operational success of a new forecast product. These results support the need for increased collaboration between the operational and research communities.
Significance Statement
Participants of the 2021 Hazardous Weather Testbed Spring Forecasting Experiment were surveyed to assess how machine learning products are perceived and evaluated in operational settings. The results revealed little difference in how machine learning products are evaluated compared to more traditional methods but emphasized the need for explainable product behavior and comprehensive end-user training.
© 2025 American Meteorological Society. This published article is licensed under the terms of the default AMS reuse license. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).
