Cited by 429Philosophy and History of ScienceSocial Science and Policy ResearchQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

Prediction and explanation in social systems

Hofman, Jake M., Sharma, Amit, Watts, Duncan J.·2017·Science

Abstract

Historically, social scientists have sought out explanations of human and social phenomena that provide interpretable causal mechanisms, while often ignoring their predictive accuracy. We argue that the increasingly computational nature of social science is beginning to reverse this traditional bias against prediction; however, it has also highlighted three important issues that require resolution. First, current practices for evaluating predictions must be better standardized. Second, theoretical limits to predictive accuracy in complex social systems must be better characterized, thereby setting expectations for what can be predicted or explained. Third, predictive accuracy and interpretability must be recognized as complements, not substitutes, when evaluating explanations. Resolving these three issues will lead to better, more replicable, and more useful social science.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.aal3856

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Publication biases that have been documented in several scientific fields can also affect ML-based science.

    “Besides, publication biases that have been documented in several scientific fields90,91 can also affect ML-based science.92,93”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 20 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hofman, J. M., Sharma, A., & Watts, D. J.
Affiliations
Microsoft (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Hofman, Jake M.
  • Sharma, Amit
  • Watts, Duncan J.
Venue
Science
Published
2017-02-03
Volume
355
Issue
6324
Pages
486-488
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2584419678
Cited by
429
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 14
FWCI
224.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › General Social Sciences › Social Science and Policy Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
explanation, causal mechanisms, prediction accuracy, computational social science, complex social systems, interpretability, replicability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review