Personalized Multitask Learning for Predicting Tomorrow's Mood, Stress, and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While accurately predicting mood and wellbeing could have a number of important clinical benefits, traditional machine learning (ML) methods frequently yield low performance in this domain. We posit that this is because a one-size-fits-all machine learning model is inherently ill-suited to predicting outcomes like mood and stress, which vary greatly due to individual differences. Therefore, we employ Multitask Learning (MTL) techniques to train personalized ML models which are customized to the needs of each individual, but still leverage data from across the population. Three formulations of MTL are compared: i) MTL deep neural networks, which share several hidden layers but have final layers unique to each task; ii) Multi-task Multi-Kernel learning, which feeds information across tasks through kernel weights on feature types; and iii) a Hierarchical Bayesian model in which tasks share a common Dirichlet Process prior. We offer the code for this work in open source. These techniques are investigated in the context of predicting future mood, stress, and health using data collected from surveys, wearable sensors, smartphone logs, and the weather. Empirical results demonstrate that using MTL to account for individual differences provides large performance improvements over traditional machine learning methods and provides personalized, actionable insights.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".