Sergey Gavrilets, Johannes Karl, and Michele J. Gelfand

PNAS 123 (7) e2522998123

People often get public opinion wrong, assuming their own views are unpopular when in fact many others share them. This widespread misperception, called pluralistic ignorance, can trap societies in harmful or outdated norms. We build a mathematical model showing how these misperceptions form and change over time, depending on whether cultures are “tight” (with strict norms) or “loose” (with flexible ones). Our results explain why support for issues like climate action or women’s rights is often underestimated, and why change happens faster in some societies than others. The model also points to practical solutions: in loose cultures, sharing accurate information works best, while in tight ones, lowering the costs of speaking up can spark social change.

Read the full article at: www.pnas.org

Federico Naldini, Fabio Oddi, Leo D’Amato, Grégory Marlière, Vito Trianni, Paola Pellegrini
Improving traffic management in case of perturbation is one of the main challenges in today’s railway research. The great majority of the existing literature proposes approaches to make centralized decisions to minimize delay propagation. In this paper, we propose a new paradigm to the same aim: we design and implement a modular process to allow trains to self-organize. This process consists in having trains identifying their neighbors, formulating traffic management hypotheses, checking their compatibility and selecting the best ones through a consensus mechanism. Finally, these hypotheses are merged into a directly applicable traffic plan. In a thorough experimental analysis on a portion of the Italian network, we compare the results of self-organization with those of a state-of-the-art centralized approach. In particular, we make this comparison mimicking a realistic deployment thanks to a closed-loop framework including a microscopic railway simulator. The results indicate that self-organization achieves better results than the centralized algorithm, specifically thanks to the definition and exploitation of the instance decomposition allowed by the proposed approach.

Read the full article at: arxiv.org

John E. Stewart

BioSystems Volume 262, April 2026, 105733

Our universe appears to be fine-tuned for life. But once life emerges, it does not evolve randomly. Evolution has a trajectory. Both evolvability and cooperative integration increase as evolution proceeds. Until now, this trajectory has largely been driven blindly by gene-based natural selection. But humans are developing cognitive capacities that are far superior than natural selection at adapting and evolving humanity. These capacities will enable humanity to use an understanding of evolution’s future trajectory to guide its own evolution, avoiding the destructive selection that will otherwise reinforce the trajectory. Humans who help realize this potential will be fulfilling vital evolutionary roles that are meaningful and purposeful in a much larger scheme of things. The paper considers whether these roles remain meaningful when considered in the wider context of possible origins of the universe. But this analysis is faced with a potentially infinite number of origin hypotheses (including innumerable ‘God hypotheses’), which are not falsified by current knowledge. The paper addresses this challenge using methods that enable rational decision-making despite radical uncertainty. Broadly, this approach reinforces the conclusions reached by consideration of the evolutionary trajectory within the universe, and opens some new possibilities. Finally, the paper demonstrates that extending this analysis also largely overcomes Hume’s critique of induction, placing scientific methodologies on a firmer footing. It achieves this by recognising that a universe which exhibits a trajectory towards increasing evolvability must contain discoverable regularities that provide adaptive advantages for evolvability.

Read the full article at: www.sciencedirect.com