Sebastian Achter
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Sebastian Achter has a total of 152 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- A. Timur Sevincer
Institute of Psychology, Leuphana University of Lüneburg , Lüneburg 21335
1 shared publication Aaron W. Lukaszewski
1 shared publication- Abigail A. Marsh
Department of Psychology, Georgetown University , Washington, DC 20007
1 shared publication - Adam Herschel Smiley
Department of Psychological Science & Neuroscience, Belmont University, Nashville, USA
1 shared publication Albert L. Ly
1 shared publication- Alberto López Ortega
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 15 November 2023
- Published by Elsevier in Environmental Modelling & Software
- Vol. 173
How to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development - Taking stock and looking ahead
- 15 November 2023
- Published by Elsevier in Environmental Modelling & Software
- Vol. 173
Open AccessHow to conduct more systematic reviews of agent-based models and foster theory development - Taking stock and looking ahead
- Top Cited Papers
- 9 February 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in Nature Human Behaviour
- Vol. 7 (4) , 484-501
Insights into the accuracy of social scientists’ forecasts of societal change
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.
- 9 February 2023
- Published by Springer Nature in Nature Human Behaviour
- Vol. 7 (4) , 484-501
Top Cited PapersInsights into the accuracy of social scientists’ forecasts of societal change
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.
- Open Access
- 30 March 2022
- Published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Vol. 25 (4) , 517-540
RAT-RS: a reporting standard for improving the documentation of data use in agent-based modelling
This article describes and justifies a reporting standard to improve data use documentation in Agent-Based Modelling. Following the development of reporting standards for models themselves, empirical modelling has now developed to the point where these standards need to take equally effective account of data use (which previously has tended to be an afterthought to model description). It is particularly important that a standard should allow the reporting of the different uses to which data may be put (specification, calibration and validation), but also that it should be compatible with the integration of different kinds of data (for example, survey, ethnographic and experimental) sometimes known as mixed methods research. The article motivates the need for standards generally, and positions the distinctive contribution of the RAT-RS reporting standard. It describes how the standard was developed to ensure its usability, presents and explains it, and describes possibilities for future development.
- 30 March 2022
- Published by Taylor & Francis in International Journal of Social Research Methodology
- Vol. 25 (4) , 517-540
Open AccessRAT-RS: a reporting standard for improving the documentation of data use in agent-based modelling
This article describes and justifies a reporting standard to improve data use documentation in Agent-Based Modelling. Following the development of reporting standards for models themselves, empirical modelling has now developed to the point where these standards need to take equally effective account of data use (which previously has tended to be an afterthought to model description). It is particularly important that a standard should allow the reporting of the different uses to which data may be put (specification, calibration and validation), but also that it should be compatible with the integration of different kinds of data (for example, survey, ethnographic and experimental) sometimes known as mixed methods research. The article motivates the need for standards generally, and positions the distinctive contribution of the RAT-RS reporting standard. It describes how the standard was developed to ensure its usability, presents and explains it, and describes possibilities for future development.
- Open Access
- 1 January 2020
- Published by Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation in Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
- Vol. 23 (1)
Theory Development Via Replicated Simulations and the Added Value of Standards
- 1 January 2020
- Published by Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation in Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation
- Vol. 23 (1)
Open AccessTheory Development Via Replicated Simulations and the Added Value of Standards
- 20 August 2018
- Published by Vulkan-Verlag GmbH in atp magazin
- Vol. 60 (8) , 54-61
Comparison of two clustering approaches to find demand patterns in semiconductor supply chain planning
- 20 August 2018
- Published by Vulkan-Verlag GmbH in atp magazin
- Vol. 60 (8) , 54-61
Comparison of two clustering approaches to find demand patterns in semiconductor supply chain planning