Cited by 584Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentMachine Learning in Healthcare

Prediction Policy Problems

Open access
Kleinberg, Jon, Ludwig, Jens, Mullainathan, Sendhil, Obermeyer, Ziad·2015·American Economic Review

Abstract

Most empirical policy work focuses on causal inference. We argue an important class of policy problems does not require causal inference but instead requires predictive inference. Solving these “prediction policy problems” requires more than simple regression techniques, since these are tuned to generating unbiased estimates of coefficients rather than minimizing prediction error. We argue that new developments in the field of “machine learning” are particularly useful for addressing these prediction problems. We use an example from health policy to illustrate the large potential social welfare gains from improved prediction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1257/aer.p20151023

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence suggests that algorithms make policy-relevant predictions more accurately, fairly, and consistently than public servants.

    “Evidence suggests that algorithms make policy-relevant predictions more accurately, fairly, and consistently than public servants ( Kleinberg et al., 2018 ;Kleinberg et al., 2015 ).”

    From The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms (2022) · cites this paper as Kleinberg et al., 2015

    Section IV, “Prediction Problems Are Common and Important” (page unavailable), reports that machine learning can improve on judges’ predictions, supporting the accuracy part of the claim. The passages do not establish that algorithms make policy-relevant predictions more fairly or consistently than public servants. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kleinberg Jon Ludwig Jens Mullainathan Sendhil Obermeyer Ziad 2015a Policy prediction problems Cambridge, MA NBER Working Paper

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Obermeyer, Z.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
American Economic Review
Published
2015-05-01
Volume
105
Issue
5
Pages
491-495
ISSN
0002-8282 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2203167467
Cited by
584
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 65 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 90 · 2019: 55 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
FWCI
24.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Economic Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (DP5OD012161)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
predictive inference, causal inference, machine learning, prediction error, health policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review