Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 22, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Forecasters often score the same units per date against one standardized realized outcome. We show that every standardized forecast splits exactly into a component aligned with this common target and a component uncorrelated with it. Three consequences follow: forecast-error correlation largely mirrors forecast correlation and is therefore a poor measure of diversity; an equally weighted combination beats a no-information forecast only when average alignment is large relative to the combination's dispersion; and the gain from adding a forecaster separates into genuine improvement and mere dilution, which equal-weight admission can mistakenly reward. We develop a cautious selection rule, study it in simulations, and apply it to language-model forecasts of US equity rankings and mechanical signals ranking exchange-traded funds. Selection removes most dilution losses, but no combination beats the no-information forecast.