| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Barausse, Enrico, et al.
(författare)
-
Prospects for fundamental physics with LISA
- 2020
-
Ingår i: General Relativity and Gravitation. - : SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS. - 0001-7701 .- 1572-9532. ; 52:8
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- In this paper, which is of programmatic rather than quantitative nature, we aim to further delineate and sharpen the future potential of the LISA mission in the area of fundamental physics. Given the very broad range of topics that might be relevant to LISA,we present here a sample of what we view as particularly promising fundamental physics directions. We organize these directions through a "science-first" approach that allows us to classify how LISA data can inform theoretical physics in a variety of areas. For each of these theoretical physics classes, we identify the sources that are currently expected to provide the principal contribution to our knowledge, and the areas that need further development. The classification presented here should not be thought of as cast in stone, but rather as a fluid framework that is amenable to change with the flow of new insights in theoretical physics.
|
|
| 3. |
- Grossmann, Igor, et al.
(författare)
-
Insights into the accuracy of social scientists' forecasts of societal change
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Nature Human Behaviour. - : Springer Nature. - 2397-3374. ; 7, s. 484-501
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- How well can social scientists predict societal change, and what processes underlie their predictions? To answer these questions, we ran two forecasting tournaments testing the accuracy of predictions of societal change in domains commonly studied in the social sciences: ideological preferences, political polarization, life satisfaction, sentiment on social media, and gender-career and racial bias. After we provided them with historical trend data on the relevant domain, social scientists submitted pre-registered monthly forecasts for a year (Tournament 1; N = 86 teams and 359 forecasts), with an opportunity to update forecasts on the basis of new data six months later (Tournament 2; N = 120 teams and 546 forecasts). Benchmarking forecasting accuracy revealed that social scientists' forecasts were on average no more accurate than those of simple statistical models (historical means, random walks or linear regressions) or the aggregate forecasts of a sample from the general public (N = 802). However, scientists were more accurate if they had scientific expertise in a prediction domain, were interdisciplinary, used simpler models and based predictions on prior data. How accurate are social scientists in predicting societal change, and what processes underlie their predictions? Grossmann et al. report the findings of two forecasting tournaments. Social scientists' forecasts were on average no more accurate than those of simple statistical models.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
