Capacity Constraints Make Admissions Processes Less Predictable

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11513v1
• Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 18:48:46 GMT
• Title: Capacity Constraints Make Admissions Processes Less Predictable
• Authors: Evan Dong, Nikhil Garg, Sarah Dean,
• Abstract summary: We show how admissions decisions are capacity-constrained, and whether a student is admitted depends on the other applicants who apply.<n>We show how this dependence affects predictive performance even in otherwise ideal settings.<n>Our work raises questions about the reliability of predicting individual admissions probabilities.
• Score: 11.377217972457936
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models are often used to make predictions about admissions process outcomes, such as for colleges or jobs. However, such decision processes differ substantially from the conventional machine learning paradigm. Because admissions decisions are capacity-constrained, whether a student is admitted depends on the other applicants who apply. We show how this dependence affects predictive performance even in otherwise ideal settings. Theoretically, we introduce two concepts that characterize the relationship between admission function properties, machine learning representation, and generalization to applicant pool distribution shifts: instability, which measures how many existing decisions can change when a single new applicant is introduced; and variability, which measures the number of unique students whose decisions can change. Empirically, we illustrate our theory on individual-level admissions data from the New York City high school matching system, showing that machine learning performance degrades as the applicant pool increasingly differs from the training data. Furthermore, there are larger performance drops for schools using decision rules that are more unstable and variable. Our work raises questions about the reliability of predicting individual admissions probabilities.

Related papers

• Learning to Represent Individual Differences for Choice Decision Making [37.97312716637515]
  We use representation learning to characterize individual differences in human performance on an economic decision-making task.<n>We demonstrate that models using representation learning to capture individual differences consistently improve decision predictions.<n>Our results propose that representation learning offers a useful and flexible tool to capture individual differences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T17:10:05Z)
• Temporal and Between-Group Variability in College Dropout Prediction [0.0]
  This study provides a systematic evaluation of contributing factors and predictive performance of machine learning models. We find dropout prediction at the end of the second year has a 20% higher AUC than at the time of enrollment in a Random Forest model. Regarding variability across student groups, college GPA has more predictive value for students from traditionally disadvantaged backgrounds than their peers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T10:43:55Z)
• Resilient Constrained Learning [94.27081585149836]
  This paper presents a constrained learning approach that adapts the requirements while simultaneously solving the learning task. We call this approach resilient constrained learning after the term used to describe ecological systems that adapt to disruptions by modifying their operation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-04T18:14:18Z)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• Towards Differential Relational Privacy and its use in Question Answering [109.4452196071872]
  Memorization of relation between entities in a dataset can lead to privacy issues when using a trained question answering model. We quantify this phenomenon and provide a possible definition of Differential Privacy (DPRP) We illustrate concepts in experiments with largescale models for Question Answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-30T22:59:24Z)
• Understanding Prediction Discrepancies in Machine Learning Classifiers [4.940323406667406]
  This paper proposes to analyze the prediction discrepancies in a pool of best-performing models trained on the same data. A model-agnostic algorithm, DIG, is proposed to capture and explain discrepancies locally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T13:42:50Z)
• Individual Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Survey for Practitioners [69.02688684221265]
  The use of sophisticated statistical models that influence decisions in domains of high societal relevance is on the rise. Many governments, institutions, and companies are reluctant to their adoption as their output is often difficult to explain in human-interpretable ways. Recently, the academic literature has proposed a substantial amount of methods for providing interpretable explanations to machine learning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T01:46:34Z)
• Improving Fairness and Privacy in Selection Problems [21.293367386282902]
  We study the possibility of using a differentially private exponential mechanism as a post-processing step to improve both fairness and privacy of supervised learning models. We show that the exponential mechanism can improve both privacy and fairness, with a slight decrease in accuracy compared to the model without post-processing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-07T15:55:28Z)
• Dropping Standardized Testing for Admissions Trades Off Information and Access [2.354619015221828]
  We study the role of information and access in capacity-constrained selection problems with fairness concerns. We develop a theoretical statistical discrimination framework, where each applicant has multiple features and is potentially strategic. Our framework finds a natural application to recent policy debates on dropping standardized testing in college admissions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-09T07:07:28Z)
• An Information-Theoretic Approach to Personalized Explainable Machine Learning [92.53970625312665]
  We propose a simple probabilistic model for the predictions and user knowledge. We quantify the effect of an explanation by the conditional mutual information between the explanation and prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-01T13:06:29Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.