LSE creators

Number of items: 4.
Centre for Analysis of Time Series
  • Machete, Reason L., Smith, Leonard A. (2016). Demonstrating the value of larger ensembles in forecasting physical systems. Tellus Series A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, 68, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v68.28393
  • Frigg, Roman, Bradley, Seamus, Machete, Reason L., Smith, Leonard A. (2013). Probabilistic forecasting: why model imperfection is a poison pill. In Andersen, Hanne, Dieks, Dennis, Gonzalez, Wenceslao, Ubel, Thomas, Wheeler, Gregory (Eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science (pp. 479-492). Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
  • Machete, Reason L. (2013). Contrasting probabilistic scoring rules. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 143(10), 1781-1790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2013.05.012
  • Machete, Reason L. (2013). Model imperfection and predicting predictability. International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, 23(08), 1330027-1-1330027-17. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218127413300279
    • Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Sciences (CPNSS)
  • Frigg, Roman, Bradley, Seamus, Machete, Reason L., Smith, Leonard A. (2013). Probabilistic forecasting: why model imperfection is a poison pill. In Andersen, Hanne, Dieks, Dennis, Gonzalez, Wenceslao, Ubel, Thomas, Wheeler, Gregory (Eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science (pp. 479-492). Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
    • Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method
  • Frigg, Roman, Bradley, Seamus, Machete, Reason L., Smith, Leonard A. (2013). Probabilistic forecasting: why model imperfection is a poison pill. In Andersen, Hanne, Dieks, Dennis, Gonzalez, Wenceslao, Ubel, Thomas, Wheeler, Gregory (Eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science (pp. 479-492). Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.
    • Statistics
  • Frigg, Roman, Bradley, Seamus, Machete, Reason L., Smith, Leonard A. (2013). Probabilistic forecasting: why model imperfection is a poison pill. In Andersen, Hanne, Dieks, Dennis, Gonzalez, Wenceslao, Ubel, Thomas, Wheeler, Gregory (Eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science (pp. 479-492). Springer Berlin / Heidelberg.