Complexity Science Hub

🤔 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲? Is it unpredictable, or are there patterns? And can we measure it? In their new 📚, 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄, published by Oxford University Press, CSH researcher Vito D. P. Servedio, together with CSH External Faculty members Vittorio Loreto and Francesca Tria, take a closer look at these questions.

“In our book, we investigate how first-time events – from everyday experiences to groundbreaking discoveries – can lead to subsequent breakthroughs,” explains Vito. “We ultimately propose a unified quantitative framework for understanding the dynamics of novelty and innovation in biological, technological and social systems.”

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀:

📖 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟭 introduces tools for studying how new ideas emerge.
📖 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟮 explores classical and modern models that capture the development, interaction and competition of innovations within complex systems.
📖 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝟯 presents empirical case studies that uncover hidden patterns in how novelty spreads.

Next week, the authors will present "The Science of the New" as part of Rome Future Week, in conversation with Anna Parisi: https://romefutureweek.it/event/la-scienza-del-nuovo/

📍 22 September 2026, 5:00 PM | Radisson Blu, Rome
👥 Vittorio Loreto (Sapienza Università di Roma, Sony CSL (Rome)), Vito D.P. Servedio (Complexity Science Hub) & Francesca Tria (Sapienza Università di Roma)

🔗 Book: https://academic.oup.com/book/62405

🌟 In this case, we can’t say it any other way: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻! Ljubica Nedelkoska really rocked our evening yesterday, sharing insights into AI and its impact on the labor market at the very first 𝗪𝗘𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗦𝗔𝗟𝗢𝗡 at the Complexity Science Hub.

She started with three historical examples of technologies that disrupted the labor market – and what happened next:

📞 𝗧𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗽𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀
The entire occupation eventually disappeared. 𝗕𝘂𝘁: many of the women working as telephone operators were able to switch to other jobs relatively easily, including as secretaries or stenographers, because they already had many of the required skills.

👞 𝗕𝗼𝗼𝘁𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗩𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱
When sewing machines capable of working with leather emerged around 1850, the traditional bootmaking industry was transformed. By 1911, around 150,000 jobs had disappeared. 𝗕𝘂𝘁: roughly 140,000 new ones had emerged. Most workers who were already in the industry kept their jobs. But their sons often ended up in very different occupations, such as machine technicians, managers, or salespeople, as production expanded.

🌾 𝗙𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗦
The invention of the combine harvester replaced several different occupations. Today, a modern combine can do the work of more than 400 people. 𝗕𝘂𝘁: it took roughly a century for the technology to reach that level of productivity.

𝗦𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗜 𝗱𝗶𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁?

For one, the pace 🏃‍♂️‍➡️ is much faster: it took just 3️⃣ years to go from AI as a writing assistant to autonomous AI agents, she emphasized. At the same time, AI is moving into a much wider range ↔️ of fields than any technology before it.

The 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗻𝗲𝘄𝘀, Ljubica pointed out, is that historically, new jobs have always emerged.

But that raises another question: 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲? – geographically and in terms of skills.

Ljubica ended with 3️⃣ questions policymakers should be thinking about:
🍰 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗲? To capture AI-led growth, the EU needs to start competing for it (for real).
🍰 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗲? If the contribution of labor to production falls significantly, e.g., taxation would need to shift away from labor.
🍰 𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗱𝗼 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗶𝗲? Can people in declining occupations make the transition to growing ones?

An incredibly interesting evening! Thanks to everyone who joined us, and especially to Aashima Dogra-Freitag for moderating the conversation!

🔗 Want to 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 – check out Ljubica’s piece in ? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01877-y
🔗 Our 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗪𝗘𝗱𝗻𝗲𝘀𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗦𝗔𝗟𝗢𝗡 will take place in October. Stay tuned and register here: https://csh.ac.at/events-news/events/

No. 3️⃣ Research Topic of the month: 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗴𝗲 – looking behind the scenes with Bernhard Haslhofer! What is he working on right now that he can't stop thinking about? What is complexity, to him? When he is stuck – what does he do? And what does his typical workday look like?

In this rapid-fire interview, Bernhard shares a personal take: https://csh.ac.at/news/crime-in-the-digital-age-interview-with-bernhard-haslhofer/

–––
𝗔𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀:

In June 2026, the Complexity Science Hub celebrated its 10th anniversary — and throughout our anniversary year, we're spotlighting one research topic every month. Curious about how we celebrated in June? For a deep dive into a decade of complexity science, read our 10-year publication here: https://csh.ac.at/news/its-the-complexity-stupid/

𝗙𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗡𝗲𝘄 𝗠𝗲𝘅𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘁 🌵 𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝟳𝟮-𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗼𝗻 🇬🇧 — besides enjoying a well-deserved summer break, CSH PhD students were also pretty busy this summer, traveling to workshops and summer schools in different corners of the world. What better combination is there than 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝘂𝗻𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 – 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲? ☀️🔬

Here are two glimpses from the road: 🧳

3️⃣ 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗸𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗮 𝗙𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗲 🏜️

The Complex Systems Summer School hosted by the Santa Fe Institute is something CSH PhD student Sophia Baum won't forget. In the mornings, SFI's incredible faculty gave lectures, while afternoons were spent on tutorials and self-organized research projects.

"Everything about this school felt intentional: how they ran the sessions, how they brought people together and how they initiated conversations that otherwise would not have happened. I walked in knowing only one other attendee and walked out knowing fifty more, from fields I never would have crossed paths with otherwise," says Sophia. In her downtime, she found herself exploring New Mexican nature and wildlife or taking in local festivals ‒ all part of a month well spent in the US. 🌄

7️⃣2️⃣ 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁, 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗹𝗲𝗲𝗽 📝

– that's how CSH PhD student Alexandra Krasnokutskaya sums up her experience at the Complexity72h workshop in London, hosted by Northeastern University London and organized by Complexity Next Gen. True to the workshop's name, she and her CSH colleagues Jiaqi Liang and Carsten Källner took on the challenge of developing a scientific preprint within 72 hours.

"In this timeframe, your results are, of course, preliminary," says Alexandra, "but you get to know so many people from the world of complexity science – and potentially meet future collaborators. “As a first-year PhD student, I’m still learning how to develop a research idea into a manuscript, so working with more senior researchers and seeing how they approach this process was incredibly valuable."

_____

💬 🫵 If you'd like to share where your summer took you, or want to share your favorite summer schools, let us know in the comments!

🔗 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗣𝗵𝗗 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗛𝘂𝗯? Check out our graduate program: https://csh.ac.at/education/graduate-program/
🔗 𝗜𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗖𝗦𝗛? Learn more about our CSH Summer Internship Program: https://csh.ac.at/education/internships/

𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻? In chess, humans and AI engines seem to have fundamentally different answers to this question.

♟️♞ ♜ In 1997, a computer beat a human at chess for the first time. Today, that's hardly news anymore. But how exactly do AI engines play chess? And how does their play differ from ours?

To find out, Complexity Science Hub researchers Vito D. P. Servedio and Eddie Lee, together with Adamo Cerioli from the University of Parma, analyzed roughly 2,400 chess games move by move (both games between humans and games between AI chess engines) and measured what they called the "strategic tension" – meaning, they quantified how many possibilities remain open after each move. The wider the range of possibilities still open at any given point, the greater the "strategic tension" players experience.

💡 Insight one: 𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝗸𝗲𝗲𝗽 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 – 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗱, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘁𝘆 – 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵

"The best humans build tension higher than any engine does; but only the engines can hold it to the end," Vito explains. While human chess grandmasters typically simplify positions as the game progresses, AI engines keep more possibilities open for much longer – sustaining complexity across the board. Or in Vito’s own words: "We light the fire. Machines keep the whole board burning."

💡 Insight two: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵

Stronger human players maintain complex positions longer than weaker players, and classical games – with more thinking time – show significantly higher cumulative tension than rapid or blitz games. A similar pattern appears in artificial intelligence when the search depth is increased.

𝗕𝗨𝗧 (‼️):
“Importantly, our study does not establish a causal link between how AI handles complexity and its superior playing strength,” says Vito. “We observe a difference in how humans and AI manage complex positions, but we cannot conclude from our data that one explains the other.”

💡Insight three: 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵-𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀?

“Many of the world’s hardest decisions – in diplomacy, military planning or financial markets – share one defining feature: they involve navigating a huge, ever-changing web of possibilities,” Vito says. Chess cannot capture the complexity of real-world decisions. Still, the findings raise a huge question: what happens when AI systems that handle complexity fundamentally differently enter high-stakes decision-making?

👉 The study has been published in APS Open Science (American Physical Society): https://doi.org/10.1103/63cv-52fj

🔗 Read the full story: https://csh.ac.at/news/ai-doesnt-just-play-better-chess-it-manages-complexity-differently/
🔗 Vito's blog post: https://lichess.org/@/yanez/blog/elite-chess-engines-sustain-higher-strategic-tension-than-humans-in-chess/lUDQDvXf

🎉 Join us in welcoming Michael Kiran Huber to the Complexity Science Hub as a PhD candidate!

He joins the 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗲𝘀 group, led by Frank Neffke, studying how AI is reshaping the way skills and know-how get coordinated in the economy – with a focus on software development.

Michael holds a master's in Logic and Computation from TU Wien, specializing in algorithmics and graph theory.

He's no stranger to CSH: he first visited in March 2025, working with Eddie Lee on reconstructing organizational structures from firms' online reading activity.

𝗪𝗲𝗹𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲, 𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗲𝗹! 👋

🔗 More about Michael: https://csh.ac.at/michael-huber/
🔗 More about Transforming Economies at CSH: https://csh.ac.at/research/research-topic/transforming-economies/

On Sunday, the far-right AfD won the state election in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany, with 43.8% of the vote – by a wide margin. A few days before the election, former Chancellor Angela Merkel said that people needed to be "a little courageous" to "fight for democracy."

❓But one may wonder: 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗼? 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘁𝗲?

We spoke with Mirta Galesic, who co-leads the 𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘀 research group at the Complexity Science Hub and who studies how people and human collectives form their beliefs.

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀 👇👇👇

1️⃣ 🚫 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽: Elaborate arguments, excessive emotionality – especially negative emotionality (such as angrily correcting others) – or any kind of “in-group/out-group” rhetoric (“us” versus “them”) only does harm and, in turn, provokes even more hostility.

2️⃣ 🤝 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁: To reduce hostility in public spaces and increase the chances of constructive conversations, it is not only sufficient but also most effective to simply express your own opinion. For example: “I agree with that.” or “I have a different opinion on that.” If you can also bring in a little humor, that helps, too. One additional point: Counterspeech is more effective when citizens organize so that there is not one lonely voice but several at the same time.

3️⃣ 💡 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝘀𝘁: “Stating a simple opinion works because it helps others to better perceive what the majority thinks without causing much backlash. In online spaces, extreme voices typically prevail and it is easy to think that one is in the minority with more moderate views. But if more citizens simply state what they think, what they agree with and disagree with, without arguments and fights, this helps others to see what the social norm is,” says Mirta.

Social norms have a strong influence on how people speak, dress, behave, etc. When people believe they are in the minority, they are more likely to keep their views to themselves and even adapt to others, which further drives the spiral of silence.

𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗿? Mirta’s insights are based on a study analyzing data from Twitter/X in Germany from 2015 to 2018, published in PNAS Nexus in November 2025. Together with CSH Associate Faculty members Jana Lasser and David Garcia, as well as Alina Herderich, Joshua Garland, and Segun Aroyehun, she studied hate and counterspeech during the so-called migrant crisis in Germany, the time that set the political stage for many of the developments we see today: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/11/pgaf369/8324867

More about Mirta: https://csh.ac.at/mirta-galesic/
More about the Collective Minds research group: https://csh.ac.at/research/research-topic/collective-minds/

𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝘁 – 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘁𝘁𝘆 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴! 📖 For our PhD student Carsten Källner, the latest issue of Communicatio Socialis features research he contributed to. Congrats, Carsten! 👏

The study looks at how German immigrants were portrayed in US newspapers between 1848 and 1914. It found that they were often collectively associated with “immaterial wealth” – education, culture and hard work – which helped ease their integration into society.

“This stands in contrast to much reporting today, where poverty is often presented as individual failure,” Carsten notes.

🔗 Learn more: https://www.inlibra.com/de/document/view/detail/uuid/91d5a467-64f4-3a44-a10a-22669610aff5

🌡️ Heat waves have become longer, more frequent, and more intense. 𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮'𝘀 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹𝘀 – how many patients get admitted, and how many die?

In the project, researchers at the Complexity Science Hub and partners linked historical weather data (2007–2019) with health records covering every inpatient hospital stay in Austria during the same period. They then projected this relationship forward through 2075 under two different climate scenarios.

You can explore the resulting "𝗛𝗲𝗮𝘁 & 𝗛𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵" created by CSH data visualization expert Liuhuaying Yang here: https://vis.csh.ac.at/heat-protect/

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱:

🏥 𝗙𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗱𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗮𝘃𝗲𝘀 – the calculations show that total inpatient admissions tend to decline more sharply the more heat days occur within the preceding 14 days. That doesn’t hold across all diagnostic groups, however – admissions actually rise for some conditions.

📈 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗹 – the risk of dying in hospital increases during longer heat periods. In scenarios without significant climate action, the number of additional annual deaths (excess mortality) in hospitals during heat waves could increase by an average of 50%.

👵 𝗢𝗹𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 – for 2025–2035, around 83% of modeled heat-associated excess deaths in hospitals are projected to occur among people aged 65 and older, according to the high-emissions scenario.

🌆 𝗘𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗔𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗮 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 – excess mortality is highest in regions hit hardest by heat: eastern Austria and urban centers – where population projections indicate that the largest numbers of older people will live in 2070.

The duration of heat periods matters: During two weeks of daily highs above 30°C, Austria-wide hospital admissions drop 4.6% – but deaths in hospitals rise 22.3%. With just five heat days in a 14-day window, admissions drop only 3.5% while deaths rise 4.4%.

The health projections come with an important caveat: the underlying data run from 2007 to 2019. Since then, extreme heat days reaching up to 40°C (104°F) have become considerably more common. “So it’s possible that our models substantially underestimate the true heat burden and the associated excess mortality in hospitals,” says CSH's Katharina Ledebur.

🔗 Explore the visualization: https://vis.csh.ac.at/heat-protect/?lang=de
🔗 Learn more: https://csh.ac.at/news/heat-waves-and-hospitals-fewer-admissions-but-more-deaths/

🚀 A MAMMOth innovation has made it onto the 𝗘𝘂𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻’𝘀 𝗜𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘃𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗥𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗿!

A tool developed within the MAMMOth project has been recognised as a tech-ready innovation: intersectional inequality analysis and fair ranking methods for multi-attribute social networks.

Its market creation potential was rated “very high” – meaning the innovation shows multiple signals of potential to create new markets.

The tool is part of the Project’s broader work to develop methods that help AI systems work more fairly and reduce the risk of discrimination against minorities and marginalised groups – in particular by addressing multiple discrimination in tabular, network-based and multimodal data.

🧑‍🔬 MAMMOth was led by Fariba Karimi, who is a faculty member at the Complexity Science Hub, together with her team: Lisette Espín-Noboa, Mauritz Cartier van Dissel, Nicola Cinardi, Ph.D., Ana María Jaramillo Mejía, Noy Lev. It was funded by the European Commission under .

Congrats! A great recognition of research with the potential to turn into real-world impact. 👏

🔗 Innovation Radar: https://innovation-radar.ec.europa.eu/innovation/67537
🔗 MAMMOth project: https://csh.ac.at/project/multi-attribute-multimodal-bias-mitigation-in-ai-systems/