Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Emily M. Cantrell

Publications and source records attributed to Emily M. Cantrell.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Machine Learning Models Trained on a Longitudinal Survey Dataset Poorly Predict Hundreds of Life Outcomes

Understanding the predictability of life outcomes is important for public policy and science, but existing studies focus on a limited number of outcomes and therefore struggle to describe the broad patterns of predictability. We developed a high-throughput approach that uses a single dataset to study the predictability of many future outcomes using past data. We deployed this approach with hundreds of outcomes and thousands of machine learning models per outcome in the Future of Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Three findings emerged. First, most outcomes were not very predictable, but some were much more predictable than others. Second, even for the most predictable outcomes, our complex prediction procedure typically exhibited little skill relative to a simple procedure. Third, we found modest patterns in how predictability varied across outcomes. We conclude by discussing scope conditions and how future research might address them.

stat.AP↗

Births are difficult to predict even with rich survey and full-population register data

Major life events have proven difficult to predict. Does this reflect limits of theory, data, and algorithms, or the large role of chance? We examine one outcome - having a child within three years - through a near-ideal setting for prediction: a data challenge where 147 researchers predicted births for Dutch residents aged 18-45, using survey data and full-population registers. Methods ranged from logistic regression to a large language model and transformers. Predictions were moderately accurate (best F1: register 0.59, survey 0.76); advanced models did not outperform classical ones; and the larger registers did not beat the survey. Simulating the stochastic biology of conception and pregnancy, we estimated a predictive ceiling (survey F1 ~ 0.86-0.94, register 0.88-0.96). Observed performance falls short of this ceiling, implicating imperfect data, methods, and unmodelled chance, while the ceiling itself shows that chance in reproduction alone sets a non-trivial limit on predicting individual lives.

cs.LG↗