Human and Algorithmic Predictions in Geopolitical Forecasting: Quantifying Uncertainty in Hard-to-Quantify Domains.

IF 10.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-29 DOI:10.1177/17456916231185339
Barbara A Mellers, John P McCoy, Louise Lu, Philip E Tetlock
{"title":"Human and Algorithmic Predictions in Geopolitical Forecasting: Quantifying Uncertainty in Hard-to-Quantify Domains.","authors":"Barbara A Mellers, John P McCoy, Louise Lu, Philip E Tetlock","doi":"10.1177/17456916231185339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research on clinical versus statistical prediction has demonstrated that algorithms make more accurate predictions than humans in many domains. Geopolitical forecasting is an algorithm-unfriendly domain, with hard-to-quantify data and elusive reference classes that make predictive model-building difficult. Furthermore, the stakes can be high, with missed forecasts leading to mass-casualty consequences. For these reasons, geopolitical forecasting is typically done by humans, even though algorithms play important roles. They are essential as aggregators of crowd wisdom, as frameworks to partition human forecasting variance, and as inputs to hybrid forecasting models. Algorithms are extremely important in this domain. We doubt that humans will relinquish control to algorithms anytime soon-nor do we think they should. However, the accuracy of forecasts will greatly improve if humans are aided by algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"711-721"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11373164/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185339","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Research on clinical versus statistical prediction has demonstrated that algorithms make more accurate predictions than humans in many domains. Geopolitical forecasting is an algorithm-unfriendly domain, with hard-to-quantify data and elusive reference classes that make predictive model-building difficult. Furthermore, the stakes can be high, with missed forecasts leading to mass-casualty consequences. For these reasons, geopolitical forecasting is typically done by humans, even though algorithms play important roles. They are essential as aggregators of crowd wisdom, as frameworks to partition human forecasting variance, and as inputs to hybrid forecasting models. Algorithms are extremely important in this domain. We doubt that humans will relinquish control to algorithms anytime soon-nor do we think they should. However, the accuracy of forecasts will greatly improve if humans are aided by algorithms.

地缘政治预测中的人工和算法预测:量化难以量化领域的不确定性。
有关临床预测与统计预测的研究表明,在许多领域,算法比人类能做出更准确的预测。地缘政治预测是一个对算法不友好的领域,难以量化的数据和难以捉摸的参考类使得预测模型的建立十分困难。此外,地缘政治预测的风险可能很高,预测失误会导致大规模伤亡。由于这些原因,地缘政治预测通常由人类完成,尽管算法发挥着重要作用。作为群众智慧的汇集者、划分人类预测差异的框架以及混合预测模型的输入,算法是必不可少的。算法在这一领域极为重要。我们怀疑人类是否会很快将控制权交给算法,我们也不认为他们应该这样做。但是,如果人类能够得到算法的帮助,预测的准确性将会大大提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Perspectives on Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Psychological Science is a journal that publishes a diverse range of articles and reports in the field of psychology. The journal includes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on various topics such as the philosophy of science and opinion pieces about major issues in the field. It also features autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, occasional humorous essays and sketches, and even has a section for invited and submitted articles. The impact of the journal can be seen through the reverberation of a 2009 article on correlative analyses commonly used in neuroimaging studies, which still influences the field. Additionally, a recent special issue of Perspectives, featuring prominent researchers discussing the "Next Big Questions in Psychology," is shaping the future trajectory of the discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science provides metrics that showcase the performance of the journal. However, the Association for Psychological Science, of which the journal is a signatory of DORA, recommends against using journal-based metrics for assessing individual scientist contributions, such as for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Therefore, the metrics provided by Perspectives on Psychological Science should only be used by those interested in evaluating the journal itself.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信