The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress
Open accessAbstract
Forecasting technological progress is of great interest to engineers, policy makers, and private investors. Several models have been proposed for predicting technological improvement, but how well do these models perform? An early hypothesis made by Theodore Wright in 1936 is that cost decreases as a power law of cumulative production. An alternative hypothesis is Moore's law, which can be generalized to say that technologies improve exponentially with time. Other alternatives were proposed by Goddard, Sinclair et al., and Nordhaus. These hypotheses have not previously been rigorously tested. Using a new database on the cost and production of 62 different technologies, which is the most expansive of its kind, we test the ability of six different postulated laws to predict future costs. Our approach involves hindcasting and developing a statistical model to rank the performance of the postulated laws. Wright's law produces the best forecasts, but Moore's law is not far behind. We discover a previously unobserved regularity that production tends to increase exponentially. A combination of an exponential decrease in cost and an exponential increase in production would make Moore's law and Wright's law indistinguishable, as originally pointed out by Sahal. We show for the first time that these regularities are observed in data to such a degree that the performance of these two laws is nearly the same. Our results show that technological progress is forecastable, with the square root of the logarithmic error growing linearly with the forecasting horizon at a typical rate of 2.5% per year. These results have implications for theories of technological change, and assessments of candidate technologies and policies for climate change mitigation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the energy transition
Way, R., Ives, M. C., Mealy, P., & Farmer, J. D. (2022) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2022.08.009 · Cited by 607
Self-citationPersonal Vehicles Evaluated against Climate Change Mitigation Targets
Miotti, M., Supran, G. J., Kim, E. J., & Trancik, J. E. (2016) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b00177 · Cited by 131
Self-citationFaber, G., Ruttinger, A., Strunge, T., Langhorst, T., Zimmermann, A., van der Hulst, M., Bensebaa, F., Moni, S., & Tao, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.820261 · Cited by 55
Metadata
- Authors
- Nagy, B., Farmer, J. D., Bui, Q. M., & Trancik, J. E.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2013-02-28
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e52669
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2001755389
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 42.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0052669
- The paper
- Nagy, B., Farmer, J. D., Bui, Q. M., & Trancik, J. E. (2013). Statistical Basis for Predicting Technological Progress. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052669
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.