Search for: All records

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 StatementParticipants 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. 

Abstract Artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) have attracted a great deal of attention from the atmospheric science community. The explosion of attention on AI/ML development carries implications for the operational community, prompting questions about how novel AI/ML advancements will translate from research into operations. However, the field lacks empirical evidence on how National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters, as key intended users, perceive AI/ML and its use in operational forecasting. This study addresses this crucial gap through structured interviews conducted with 29 NWS forecasters from October 2021 through July 2023 in which we explored their perceptions of AI/ML in forecasting. We found that forecasters generally prefer the term “machine learning” over “artificial intelligence” and that labeling a product as being AI/ML did not hurt perceptions of the products and made some forecasters more excited about the product. Forecasters also had a wide range of familiarity with AI/ML, and overall, they were (tentatively) open to the use of AI/ML in forecasting. We also provide examples of specific areas related to AI/ML that forecasters are excited or hopeful about and that they are concerned or worried about. One concern that was raised in several ways was that AI/ML could replace forecasters or remove them from the forecasting process. However, forecasters expressed a widespread and deep commitment to the best possible forecasts and services to uphold the agency mission using whatever tools or products that are available to assist them. Last, we note how forecasters’ perceptions evolved over the course of the study. 

Abstract Artificial Intelligence applications are rapidly expanding across weather, climate, and natural hazards. AI can be used to assist with forecasting weather and climate risks, including forecasting both the chance that a hazard will occur and the negative impacts from it, which means AI can help protect lives, property, and livelihoods on a global scale in our changing climate. To ensure that we are achieving this goal, the AI must be developed to be trustworthy, which is a complex and multifaceted undertaking. We present our work from the NSF AI Institute for Research on Trustworthy AI in Weather, Climate, and Coastal Oceanography (AI2ES), where we are taking a convergence research approach. Our work deeply integrates across AI, environmental, and risk communication sciences. This involves collaboration with professional end-users to investigate how they assess the trustworthiness and usefulness of AI methods for forecasting natural hazards. In turn, we use this knowledge to develop AI that is more trustworthy. We discuss how and why end-users may trust or distrust AI methods for multiple natural hazards, including winter weather, tropical cyclones, severe storms, and coastal oceanography. 

This project developed a pre-interview survey, interview protocols, and materials for conducting interviews with expert users to better understand how they assess and make use decisions about new AI/ML guidance. Weather forecasters access and synthesize myriad sources of information when forecasting for high-impact, severe weather events. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have increasingly been used to produce new guidance tools with the goal of aiding weather forecasting, including for severe weather. For this study, we leveraged these advances to explore how National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters perceive the use of new AI guidance for forecasting severe hail and storm mode. We also specifically examine which guidance features are important for how forecasters assess the trustworthiness of new AI guidance. To this aim, we conducted online, structured interviews with NWS forecasters from across the Eastern, Central, and Southern Regions. The interviews covered the forecasters’ approaches and challenges for forecasting severe weather, perceptions of AI and its use in forecasting, and reactions to one of two experimental (i.e., non-operational) AI severe weather guidance: probability of severe hail or probability of storm mode. During the interview, the forecasters went through a self-guided review of different sets of information about the development (spin-up information, AI model technique, training of AI model, input information) and performance (verification metrics, interactive output, output comparison to operational guidance) of the presented guidance. The forecasters then assessed how the information influenced their perception of how trustworthy the guidance was and whether or not they would consider using it for forecasting. This project includes the pre-interview survey, survey data, interview protocols, and accompanying information boards used for the interviews. There is one set of interview materials in which AI/ML are mentioned throughout and another set where AI/ML were only mentioned at the end of the interviews. We did this to better understand how the label “AI/ML” did or did not affect how interviewees responded to interview questions and reviewed the information board. We also leverage think aloud methods with the information board, the instructions for which are included in the interview protocols. 

This project developed a pre-interview survey, interview protocols, and materials for conducting interviews with expert users to better understand how they assess and make use decisions about new AI/ML guidance. Weather forecasters access and synthesize myriad sources of information when forecasting for high-impact, severe weather events. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have increasingly been used to produce new guidance tools with the goal of aiding weather forecasting, including for severe weather. For this study, we leveraged these advances to explore how National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters perceive the use of new AI guidance for forecasting severe hail and storm mode. We also specifically examine which guidance features are important for how forecasters assess the trustworthiness of new AI guidance. To this aim, we conducted online, structured interviews with NWS forecasters from across the Eastern, Central, and Southern Regions. The interviews covered the forecasters’ approaches and challenges for forecasting severe weather, perceptions of AI and its use in forecasting, and reactions to one of two experimental (i.e., non-operational) AI severe weather guidance: probability of severe hail or probability of storm mode. During the interview, the forecasters went through a self-guided review of different sets of information about the development (spin-up information, AI model technique, training of AI model, input information) and performance (verification metrics, interactive output, output comparison to operational guidance) of the presented guidance. The forecasters then assessed how the information influenced their perception of how trustworthy the guidance was and whether or not they would consider using it for forecasting. This project includes the pre-interview survey, survey data, interview protocols, and accompanying information boards used for the interviews. There is one set of interview materials in which AI/ML are mentioned throughout and another set where AI/ML were only mentioned at the end of the interviews. We did this to better understand how the label “AI/ML” did or did not affect how interviewees responded to interview questions and reviewed the information board. We also leverage think aloud methods with the information board, the instructions for which are included in the interview protocols. 

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) pose a challenge for achieving science that is both reproducible and replicable. The challenge is compounded in supervised models that depend on manually labeled training data, as they introduce additional decision‐making and processes that require thorough documentation and reporting. We address these limitations by providing an approach to hand labeling training data for supervised ML that integrates quantitative content analysis (QCA)—a method from social science research. The QCA approach provides a rigorous and well‐documented hand labeling procedure to improve the replicability and reproducibility of supervised ML applications in Earth systems science (ESS), as well as the ability to evaluate them. Specifically, the approach requires (a) the articulation and documentation of the exact decision‐making process used for assigning hand labels in a “codebook” and (b) an empirical evaluation of the reliability” of the hand labelers. In this paper, we outline the contributions of QCA to the field, along with an overview of the general approach. We then provide a case study to further demonstrate how this framework has and can be applied when developing supervised ML models for applications in ESS. With this approach, we provide an actionable path forward for addressing ethical considerations and goals outlined by recent AGU work on ML ethics in ESS. 

This project developed a pre-interview survey, interview protocols, and materials for conducting interviews with expert users to better understand how they assess and make use decisions about new AI/ML guidance. Weather forecasters access and synthesize myriad sources of information when forecasting for high-impact, severe weather events. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have increasingly been used to produce new guidance tools with the goal of aiding weather forecasting, including for severe weather. For this study, we leveraged these advances to explore how National Weather Service (NWS) forecasters perceive the use of new AI guidance for forecasting severe hail and storm mode. We also specifically examine which guidance features are important for how forecasters assess the trustworthiness of new AI guidance. To this aim, we conducted online, structured interviews with NWS forecasters from across the Eastern, Central, and Southern Regions. The interviews covered the forecasters’ approaches and challenges for forecasting severe weather, perceptions of AI and its use in forecasting, and reactions to one of two experimental (i.e., non-operational) AI severe weather guidance: probability of severe hail or probability of storm mode. During the interview, the forecasters went through a self-guided review of different sets of information about the development (spin-up information, AI model technique, training of AI model, input information) and performance (verification metrics, interactive output, output comparison to operational guidance) of the presented guidance. The forecasters then assessed how the information influenced their perception of how trustworthy the guidance was and whether or not they would consider using it for forecasting. This project includes the pre-interview survey, survey data, interview protocols, and accompanying information boards used for the interviews. There is one set of interview materials in which AI/ML are mentioned throughout and another set where AI/ML were only mentioned at the end of the interviews. We did this to better understand how the label “AI/ML” did or did not affect how interviewees responded to interview questions and reviewed the information board. We also leverage think aloud methods with the information board, the instructions for which are included in the interview protocols. 

Abstract Demands to manage the risks of artificial intelligence (AI) are growing. These demands and the government standards arising from them both call for trustworthy AI. In response, we adopt a convergent approach to review, evaluate, and synthesize research on the trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences and propose a research agenda. Evidential and conceptual histories of research on trust and trustworthiness reveal persisting ambiguities and measurement shortcomings related to inconsistent attention to the contextual and social dependencies and dynamics of trust. Potentially underappreciated in the development of trustworthy AI for environmental sciences is the importance of engaging AI users and other stakeholders, which human–AI teaming perspectives on AI development similarly underscore. Co‐development strategies may also help reconcile efforts to develop performance‐based trustworthiness standards with dynamic and contextual notions of trust. We illustrate the importance of these themes with applied examples and show how insights from research on trust and the communication of risk and uncertainty can help advance the understanding of trust and trustworthiness of AI in the environmental sciences. 

Abstract We introduce the National Science Foundation (NSF) AI Institute for Research on Trustworthy AI in Weather, Climate, and Coastal Oceanography (AI2ES). This AI institute was funded in 2020 as part of a new initiative from the NSF to advance foundational AI research across a wide variety of domains. To date AI2ES is the only NSF AI institute focusing on environmental science applications. Our institute focuses on developing trustworthy AI methods for weather, climate, and coastal hazards. The AI methods will revolutionize our understanding and prediction of high-impact atmospheric and ocean science phenomena and will be utilized by diverse, professional user groups to reduce risks to society. In addition, we are creating novel educational paths, including a new degree program at a community college serving underrepresented minorities, to improve workforce diversity for both AI and environmental science.