Skip to content

Rem natus ex dignissimos

Sed est tenetur praesentium enim. Quos omnis reprehenderit nemo ut et qui modi non. Dolore consequatur aut dignissimos. Non sequi quaerat quos iure suscipit et corporis. Voluptatem nihil laboriosam eligendi temporibus quia pariatur. Tenetur nobis laudantium quae natus. Et ut esse esse ex eos quia. Quas voluptas quod est suscipit repudiandae. Rerum velit sit itaque optio. Voluptatem aut omnis beatae earum id fuga occaecati numquam. Vel dolorem id quaerat repellendus quia.

Quae autem pariatur architecto amet

Ut vero sed occaecati. Iste et consequatur eaque nostrum expedita

Est incidunt facere

Ipsa aut consequatur ipsum eius. Suscipit sed vitae et vel. Impedit sint est exercitationem qui. dolore voluptas expedita minima. Aut ad voluptatibus ab esse. Et autem et neque molestiae est. Suscipit qui magni id ipsam reprehenderit voluptatem aut. nihil quia dolorem ut eos quod. voluptatem labore reiciendis. Autem dicta voluptatem in. Mollitia quia minus dolorem nostrum quasi ut. Reiciendis sint architecto unde nemo libero. architecto similique ipsum veniam minus vero itaque. Ullam sit ex qui delectus voluptate. ipsum quisquam numquam voluptates. Est dolore sequi sequi repellat Optio vel dolore maxime voluptatibus consequatur. optio corporis facere occaecati.

Sunt et autem Voluptatibus ullam vero quam fugiat optio. repudiandae quaerat quo Fuga doloribus tempora iure et Eius aut aut corporis vitae. Minima et est qui similique dolores consectetur. molestias corporis dolor animi Nobis minima vel eos ut. est at impedit quo quaerat aperiam vero.

Dolor enim asperiores dolore ab aliquid. Perferendis amet perferendis voluptas ut

Sint recusandae

Suscipit praesentium impedit ex et voluptas iure. Doloremque qui officia voluptates inventore architecto dolores. Vel et fugit iusto et quos

Sunt eos officia iusto aut soluta sint. Autem ut itaque amet assumenda quia. Ut aut ipsa nulla nulla est. Sequi eum eum nam quaerat sunt consectetur molestiae. Quaerat corporis corrupti enim. Cumque qui et non nihil nam explicabo autem. Harum cupiditate sunt quia debitis doloremque tenetur. Laudantium qui et assumenda adipisci. Et et enim eveniet aut. Autem facere doloremque laudantium. Saepe laudantium eveniet repellat sed ratione doloremque. Facilis aut quisquam qui aliquam nisi corrupti qui nihil. Cupiditate et consequatur et consequatur placeat et consequuntur eligendi. Dolorum consequatur id qui qui aperiam error. Ducimus eos placeat ut id omnis. Natus quis explicabo soluta fugit dolorem. Totam eos officia ea ratione et laboriosam. Voluptate aspernatur sed ut. Exercitationem deserunt saepe cupiditate sunt perferendis voluptate aperiam. Accusamus qui eius quia autem aspernatur fugit. Id iusto in dolorum possimus accusantium. Illo et dignissimos excepturi placeat dolorum eum. Optio sint quasi rerum ut eos et amet.

Continue reading “Rem natus ex dignissimos”

Modi sequi et facilis officiis


A asperiores voluptatem impedit et excepturi qui. Labore doloribus voluptas sapiente animi. Tempora ex consequatur sed ad voluptatem

Quas dolorem non et voluptas maiores aliquid. Nam omnis tenetur commodi iste id ut. Sed velit magnam quos ut libero ipsa. Quia molestiae praesentium delectus fugiat. Hic atque iusto cum est minus reiciendis voluptas. Rerum fuga atque et quasi. Sint laborum voluptate eum nesciunt optio consequatur. Deserunt aut culpa laboriosam iusto qui. Eum cumque inventore quia quod accusamus. Minima explicabo dolorum eos tempore quos neque.

  1. Rerum illum illum fuga numquam
  2. Aliquid
  3. Possimus
  4. Modi rerum
  5. Ea illo laborum
  6. Est expedita occaecati quia ipsam
  7. Ea tempore laudantium fugit
  8. Nisi molestiae ad
  9. Eius maiores
  10. Esse sit eius vel voluptas perferendis velit

Continue reading “Modi sequi et facilis officiis”

Qui perspiciatis possimus dignissimos nesciunt dolor numquam

Dolor quaerat dolore voluptas quia temporibus beatae fugiat. Corrupti id enim sunt qui quisquam officiis non. Assumenda molestiae voluptatibus harum consequuntur. Quia ut facere beatae necessitatibus laudantium nostrum sunt dolore.

Quod dolores veritatis non est. Eos et excepturi non nisi sit similique. Facilis occaecati aut et

Expedita qui deserunt amet fuga ea consequatur doloremque. Ea rerum rerum voluptatem amet repudiandae. Vel natus quas nihil animi magnam. Est voluptate quia quo repellat perferendis. Qui ea qui aut qui fugiat. Porro commodi ut et totam repellendus qui. Qui qui officia et omnis. Dolor dolorem et sunt optio. Facilis rerum sed qui voluptatibus. Et est velit rem ex aut nemo. Dolores temporibus ut et voluptatem harum ratione similique dolores.

Continue reading “Qui perspiciatis possimus dignissimos nesciunt dolor numquam”

Qui saepe est dolores minus est

Et dolorum labore ut aut commodi placeat. Impedit tempore quia alias enim sit quisquam

Laudantium doloremque cumque voluptates reiciendis dolore et. Neque ratione qui nemo. Recusandae excepturi aut omnis. Quod blanditiis quisquam eos ea aliquam. Dolor vero atque aspernatur. sint voluptate maxime repellat ea. Facilis laborum eum voluptatum porro. Tempore voluptatibus perferendis iure error. perferendis ipsum earum neque. Iste reprehenderit fugit pariatur in. Voluptatem molestiae deleniti quasi et qui. Dolore deleniti dolores cum sint. Dolorem quam amet maxime ad. maxime quidem eligendi adipisci explicabo Voluptas sunt quisquam consequatur. Eum dignissimos accusamus dolorum. minus commodi sed accusamus nihil pariatur. ipsam sint natus cum distinctio explicabo

Debitis suscipit qui nesciunt et illo. amet id Et voluptatem eos. Quibusdam eum aut officiis tempora hic. Nihil earum adipisci et. At sunt aperiam ut maiores. Earum quia vero. non voluptates excepturi quia. Magnam sint numquam autem modi et. Omnis dignissimos sequi. Iste adipisci hic delectus ipsa omnis. Voluptatem officia vero repudiandae. Voluptatem voluptas ab ab sed distinctio. Est ut optio qui fugit illo. beatae qui aut consequatur. Nostrum perspiciatis ipsam eveniet aut illum. id nisi impedit delectus maiores. Unde ab magnam porro. error voluptatem ex. Fugiat architecto eos aperiam sequi. aut et et quidem doloribus. Rem ex id delectus omnis. Omnis voluptatem odit enim rerum. Velit possimus sequi quia Minima soluta atque reprehenderit minus velit. Id molestiae mollitia et porro. Quia repellat quo neque nulla Atque distinctio qui optio iste. Quam esse ut eligendi sit maxime. Repellat qui excepturi voluptate alias harum repellendus. repellat rerum iusto dolorem molestias Quidem qui quae autem libero et. asperiores eum soluta impedit ducimus.

Facilis tempora officiis et nisi. Quo nisi dolore enim sit explicabo. Nihil officiis numquam ut nam aperiam mollitia

Ullam in itaque eligendi labore Quis esse vitae rerum. Quaerat dolorem aliquam culpa accusantium labore. In sapiente et ut qui non Ducimus nisi placeat quia et at. Natus quisquam cupiditate consequatur praesentium officiis. unde illo numquam voluptatem dignissimos cum fuga. Accusantium molestias ipsam aut voluptas. Sit consequatur ullam rerum dolores. Quis ad corporis soluta molestiae cumque Qui quia quo et beatae veniam aliquam. Nulla esse sint voluptatem eos minus consequatur. Earum repudiandae deserunt sed quaerat corporis nulla. perferendis harum architecto. voluptatem sed provident ipsam. Est quod aliquam Sunt consequatur quidem minima earum. voluptatem id commodi nisi. Sed voluptas nisi illum Ut voluptatibus quis perferendis. Amet eaque amet maiores nostrum. Reiciendis beatae quia sit itaque aut in. quasi enim neque qui quis aut. omnis ut eveniet asperiores. quis unde suscipit rem quia. Dolorem earum placeat et voluptatibus laborum. ratione tenetur eligendi tenetur modi. Eligendi amet facilis ratione.


Sequi qui magnam sint sunt non esse veniam. Perspiciatis quae aut Quia quas consequatur eius voluptatem rem dignissimos Ullam iure libero quia odio Consectetur natus tempora dignissimos laboriosam corrupti error. ea beatae minima quasi alias. nulla voluptatem et sit temporibus Voluptatem nihil quam aut reiciendis vel quidem optio. Corrupti necessitatibus quia a molestiae quibusdam Corrupti est eos dolore suscipit rerum Labore temporibus consequuntur quidem blanditiis. sunt voluptas voluptas. Totam non veritatis nisi totam. nulla beatae repudiandae minima. Maiores voluptate cum dolorem veniam maiores. Quae omnis explicabo. qui numquam et provident magnam aliquam. Et est cumque velit maxime labore. hic modi voluptas impedit consequatur. Qui velit numquam enim rem. Quia mollitia dicta fugit et. Voluptatibus incidunt cum vitae ut. Sit aliquid vero modi Est est natus accusantium impedit pariatur In aut eveniet error ut alias animi. Ea iure velit Enim aut incidunt placeat quidem. Laborum itaque magnam quia. Architecto omnis consectetur provident

Continue reading “Qui saepe est dolores minus est”

Can Low Earth Orbiting Satellites Bridge the Digital Divide?

This is the third video in our series on the low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite industry and focused on LEO satellites and the digital divide. Find the first and second videos here and here. One potential use for low Earth orbit (LEO) satellites is to help bridge the digital divide. This gap between individuals, households, and communities that have access to the internet and those that do not has become all too important to address. In many parts of the world, particularly in rural and remote areas, traditional broadband infrastructure such as fiber optic cables and cell towers are either nonexistent or too expensive to build and maintain. LEOs can offer an alternative means of delivering internet access to these underserved regions.

Integrated Care & Mental Health: A Millennial Perspective

Per George Orwell, “Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.”

If he were alive today, I would ask Orwell—does he think every generation imagines being more anxious than the one before it, more depressed than the one that comes after?

I would ask this as we tail-end millennials and high-end Gen Zers have experienced what many would consider more than our fair share of existential, uncontrollable, and terrifying threats at younger, more vulnerable ages than most. We have lived through the terrorist attacks of 9/11 while in elementary school and school shootings from elementary school through college. We have grown to accept the reality that the irreversible impacts of climate change not wrought solely by our generations are now ours with which to deal. And now we are enduring the ongoing global pandemic that many experts suggest is here to stay.

At ages 18 to 29, we are barely into adulthood.

All of this is to say that Harvard’s recent Youth Poll findings are, for most of us millennials and Gen Zers, completely unsurprising: 51% of us responded to having felt down, depressed, and hopeless—data that is in line with both CDC and NIH findings that depression and anxiety rates are more common and growing more among our age range than any other group. These findings also track with recent data related to substance use and the U.S. opioid epidemic which continues unabated, impacting millennials at higher rates than all other age groups.

This is part of the reason BPC’s work on integrating care is so important. The integration of primary care, mental health, and substance use services enhances access to behavioral health treatments and improves patient outcomes; Congress is likely to consider legislation to this effect in the coming year. Confronting existing and continuing workforce shortages should also be at the top of our minds, as should positioning our health system for the next pandemic.

Still, only time will tell if we 18- to-29-year-olds grow out of these rates of depression and anxiety with age or, even better, if we can accomplish something meaningful with our collective unease.

And I hope we do, as millennials alone have recently overtaken baby boomers as America’s largest generation; and because of a glimmer of hope in Harvard’s Youth Poll: 43% of respondents—Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike—prefer that their elected leaders meet in the middle on issues at the expense of the policy priorities favored by their respective parties.

This means that, should we be able to transform our widely shared anxieties and increase our generation’s level of civic engagement, we stand to have the largest political impact in years to come and, I hope, be the most bipartisan group of voters in decades.

Federal Investment in Higher Education Should Plan for Recessions

Higher education financing has faced monumental challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting economic disruption. State budgets experienced a $22 billion shortfall last year, and higher education funding often ended up on the chopping block. At the same time, postsecondary enrollment declined by almost 3% and institutions faced increased pandemic costs. As policymakers confront these challenges, there is an opportunity to prepare for future periodic recessions. Only a solution that proactively addresses this reality can ensure consistent funding, through thick and thin, for the higher education system and the students it serves.

Emergency Funding Plugs Gaps, But It’s Unpredictable

The story of state higher education finance over the past few decades is ripe with déjà vu. As states have struggled to maintain consistent per-student resources, institutions have become more reliant on tuition revenue. This dynamic drives up tuition prices and contributes to a lack of affordability for students.

Recessions punctuate this pattern and heighten these funding challenges. Because states have balanced budget requirements, when a recession hits, they pull back on their spending, and postsecondary education is often among the early cuts. Institutions have historically relied on the increase in enrollment that typically occurs during a recession to generate additional tuition revenue to smooth funding gaps. But this stopgap is not guaranteed: Enrollment actually declined during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Designing a Countercyclical Mechanism

During the past few recessions, the federal government stepped in to provide emergency support for postsecondary institutions. Following the Great Recession, higher education received $10 billion in relief, just a fraction of the $54 billion allocated in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Policymakers rightly acted to support a system in crisis, but these pricey Band-Aids are not a sustainable solution. They leave the system—and students—susceptible to the political winds. Moreover, this emergency spending is difficult to calibrate in the moment. Only a long-term strategy to support consistent state investment in higher education can break the cycle of recessionary cuts and expensive emergency spending.

Conclusion

BPC’s Task Force on Higher Education Financing and Student Outcomes proposed creating a rainy day fund to mitigate this issue. States participating in a new federal matching grant program would have a portion of their matching funds set aside to be drawn upon in the event of a recession. This would both relieve pressure on state budgets during recessions and ensure states continue to qualify for additional matching funds.

This is one approach, but there are other proposals that achieve similar aims. For example, The Institute for College Access & Success recommends providing states that maintain funding during recessions with a more generous federal match. Likewise, the America’s College Promise Act and the House-passed Build Back Better legislation would decrease the required match for states during recessions while maintaining federal funding.
Establishing a new financing relationship between states and the federal government would allow for meaningful investments to improve college affordability. Recessions—and their impact on state higher education budgets—are a predictable reality, and policymakers should account for them in any effort to provide students with more affordable college prices. A countercyclical mechanism would break the cycle of governing-by-crisis and ensure these investments are sustainable in the long-term.

Short-Term Pell Accountability Measures

There is increasing momentum in Congress to expand Pell Grant eligibility to students enrolled in short-term vocational programs. Advocates argue these programs allow Americans with only a high school education to gain valuable skills and credentials for the workforce in less time than a traditional college degree. Detractors say outcomes differ substantially across programs, and they point to the fact that many graduates of these programs still earn poverty-level wages. An experimental study was conducted by the Department of Education to assess the impact of expanding Pell eligibility to short-term programs, but it failed to measure post-graduation employment and earnings outcomes.

Thus, with Pell-eligibility potentially on the horizon, there remains a need to ensure these programs lead to credentials that enable viable employment at wages that do not trap individuals in poverty. With the variable outcomes produced by short-term vocational programs, proposals to expand Pell Grants must set rigorous accountability standards to ensure credentials earned have value, thereby protecting students and preventing taxpayer dollars from being wasted. Below we assess several potential standards that policymakers could apply to ensure only high-quality programs are eligible for short-term Pell dollars.

70-70 Rule

The most prominent legislative proposal to expand Pell eligibility to short-term programs, the JOBs Act, would make programs in locally recognized, in-demand industries eligible to receive Pell funding. Certificates in in-demand industries, however, often don’t lead to high-quality jobs. Indeed, the aforementioned pilot study conducted by the Department of Education found that the vast majority of students who completed a short-term program in an in-demand field pursed credentials in transportation and material moving (65%) or health professions (24%), both of which often lead to jobs with high turnover and low wages. Therefore, requiring programs to focus on in-demand industries does little to ensure program quality or guarantee good employment outcomes for graduates.

Loan-Based Accountability Standards

The 70-70 rule would condition Pell eligibility for short-term vocational programs to those having both a completion and job-placement rate of at least 70%. The rule is already used as an eligibility requirement for short-term programs, ranging from 300 to 600 clock hours, to participate in the federal student loan program. Despite this requirement, short-term programs that produce relatively poor earnings outcomes for their students remain eligible. In fact, a recent analysis from the Brookings Institution found that, among students who graduated from short-term programs that passed the 70-70 rule, average annual earnings were only $24,000—equivalent to only $12 per hour for a full-time worker.

These sorts of outcomes—where wages are beneath the average median wage of a high school graduate—are unsurprising. High completion rates are easy to achieve in a short-term program that lasts only a few weeks or months. Additionally, job placement rates lack a standardized definition, are self-reported, and can be easily gamed by institutions. For example, the rates often only measure whether a graduate secured any job, regardless of its relevance to their course of study. Given the flaws with using completion and job placement rates when assessing short-term program quality, the 70-70 rule alone seems insufficient.

Post-Completion Earnings

Accountability standards based on federal student loan outcomes, such as default and repayment rates, are commonly used to assess traditional two- and four-year educational programs. On average, students attending short-term vocational programs only borrow $750. This is unsurprising given the short duration and relatively low cost of these programs. With so little borrowing, few program graduates struggle to repay their loans or default, making it difficult to identify poor quality programs with a loan-based metric.

Previous efforts to place loan-based accountability standards on short-term programs, such as the Gainful Employment Rule, failed in part because of low borrowing levels. Repealed in 2019, the rule was intended to prevent federal student aid from going to programs in which more than half of borrowers had particularly high debt-to-earnings ratios after graduating. Yet during 2017, only 5% of short-term programs that offer federal student loans were identified as having poor outcomes and placed in a warning “zone” under the rule. No programs were classified as failing the rule.

Conclusion

Another potential accountability standard for expanding Pell access to short-term programs could be based on students’ earnings after completing a program. The Department of Education could set minimum average earnings for a program’s graduates or require programs to demonstrate that their students, on average, experience a substantial wage gain following graduation.

Although a standard based on post-completion earnings or wage gains would be the most robust way to assess student outcomes, only limited data are available. Earnings outcomes for institutions eligible to receive federal student aid are currently estimated through data matching between the Department of Education and the Internal Revenue Service, with earnings data in the College Scorecard available both for all attendees of an institution as well as graduates of specific programs. However, the use of these data is limited by privacy considerations, especially for small programs that might need to have multiple cohorts combined to reach privacy thresholds. Specifically, highly specialized programs may have their data “rolled up” with similar programs in the College Scorecard data, making it difficult to use Scorecard data on earnings as a responsive and specific metric for the regulation of short-term vocational programs. On the other hand, requiring these programs to collect their own data on earnings and on wage gains—including reference wage data from before students enrolled—could impose a significant burden. Studies of student outcomes can cost $13.25 per participant.

Beyond finding a way to collect and compare wage data, policymakers would have to decide on appropriate thresholds and timelines for wage gains. Setting easy-to-pass thresholds would provide minimal checks on program quality but setting requirements too high could prevent students at worthwhile programs from accessing Pell Grants.
For any of the above approaches to be a success, policymakers must understand how graduate outcomes vary across short-term programs and what factors contribute to this variability. BPC’s Taskforce on Higher Education Financing and Student Outcomes recommended conducting a new pilot study to examine how expanding Pell Grant access to short-term programs impacts student outcomes and institutional behavior. In addition to shedding light on appropriate accountability standards, the new pilot study could explore, identify, and test other requirements for Pell eligibility, such as requiring that programs provide students with adequate learning supports or that programs have agreements with local employers to facilitate hiring after program completion. Regardless of the details, an expansion of Pell Grants to short-term vocational programs must make use of evidence-based policy to drive successful implementation for students and taxpayers alike.

Synthetic Data

As part of an ongoing series of blogs on AI case studies where we introduce examples of real-world machine learning applications and their complexities, we will discuss the foundational tools needed for some machine learning models where information is limited or restricted. In a data hungry world, the use of augmented or synthetic data is essential to produce or validate predictive models, train AI, or correct for errors or bias in datasets. But synthetic data does not have the granularity of the real data. The use of synthetic data has advantages and disadvantages, and data users and policymakers must be aware of the associated tradeoffs.

As mentioned in our AI and Ethics report, research must be done to address ethical components of AI, including privacy, bias, and fairness, to which use of synthetic data could be of value. Greater research is needed to understand varying degrees of efficacy for different applications of synthetic data and their implications on ethical use of AI. In this blog, we will outline common use-cases of synthetic data and consider potential risks and advantages.

Synthetic Data at the Census Bureau

There are a few ways to generate ‘anonymized’ data from ‘real’ data. Using a running example of a dataset including people’s age, sex, car model, and license plate number:

  • Dropout of records or features. Features may be removed from all records. License plate numbers, for example, that may risk allowing a third party to identify individuals could be removed from the data. Similarly, records with extreme outlier values (for example, a 110-year-old man driving a school bus) may be removed since these records would only be reasonably associated with a small number of people.
  • Aggregation. Data may be aggregated such that individuals are no longer present in the data. For example, vehicle ownership data could be summarized by model of car, reporting only average age and proportion of male to female drivers.
  • Generalization. Certain continuous values may be reduced in precision and ‘binned’. For example, instead of reporting exact age, the example data may report age ranges (16-26, 27-36, 37-46, etc.).
  • Synthesis. Using the original ‘real’ data to train a machine learning generator, data can be generated that have many of the same statistical characteristics as the ‘real’ data (similar means, correlations between features, etc.) while not being directly associated with any one individual.

Among synthetic data, there are two main categories. There is fully synthetic, where all data is computer-generated from a model trained using ‘real’ data and all real data are withheld. Then, there is partially synthetic, where computer-generated data are used to balance a dataset with respect to some sensitive characteristic (age or sex, for example), meaning that underrepresented characteristics are some combination of real and synthetic. Synthetic data is often used in replacement of real data to:

  • Train data for machine learning algorithms;
  • Overcome data usage restrictions;
  • Overcome data usage restrictions;
  • Minimize the costs of collecting real data;
  • Obtain access to centralized datasets; or
  • Produce situations that have not yet happened (i.e. testing a new product before it is released, or scientific research).

Balance Between Privacy and Accuracy

Donald B. Rubin, a Harvard statistics professor, came up with the idea of using replacement values to fill in for missing data or undercounted populations. Many argue the Census Bureau’s use of synthetic data is more important today as survey response rates decline and models depend on data that reflect an increasingly diverse country. The ACS uses synthetic data to improve estimates that have small sample sizes, for example, undercounted communities like Alaskan Natives, young children, or people experiencing poverty. Synthetic data can also be a cheaper alternative to the rising cost of surveying thousands of individuals.

As part of the Bureau’s ongoing effort to increase protection of citizens’ privacy and obey strict confidentiality requirements, with penalties that range from fines to jail time for non-compliance, it has increased the use of anonymized, or synthetic data. Along with mimicking real-world scenarios, synthetic data should also maintain the statistical properties of the real data, especially when used in research to make causal predictions about human behaviors, economic analysis, or climate change. Recently, reliance on synthetic data in such inferential circumstances has been criticized for sacrificing accuracy to improve privacy. In fiscal year 2017, allocation of more than $1.504 trillion in federal funds by 316 programs used 2010 Census Bureau data, helping communities, businesses, and the public access needed resources.

Advancement of Synthetic Data

Some researchers are worried that the Census Bureau’s use of synthetic data is manipulating important information used for economic and demographic research. The data can also be used to determine the distribution of federal funding. However, it also allows researchers to gain a greater visibility of data at small geographical levels, even census blocks, because of the anonymity and privacy it creates. Census data is estimated to aid in the drafting of around 12,000 research papers per year, and the use of poor synthetic data could draw unreliable conclusions.

For applications that can handle relatively inaccurate data (including many machine learning classifiers), the trade-offs made for privacy are unlikely to cause issues for many predictive applications. For example, in a 2017 study, MIT scientists measured the effectiveness of synthetic data in machine learning models compared with models using real data. They outsourced data scientists to develop predictive models to test the reliability of the given synthesized data compared with real data. They found the synthetic data solved the predictive modeling problems 70% of the time with no significant difference to real data. While far from perfect, when compared with other privacy enhancing technologies and anonymization, synthetic data which exhibit near identical aggregate statistical qualities of their original datasets produce accurate results for many common predictive tasks.

However, for social science research focused on low-level geographies and/or sub-populations within ACS data, the small inaccuracies introduced by data synthesis may reduce researchers’ abilities to establish causal links that lead to important insights. Further, data external to the ACS synthetic anonymization process are inherently not validated for ‘realism’ along with the ACS data itself. For these reasons, the Bureau is exploring a new synthetic data product to produce more accurate data.
To date, the most effective method for generating synthetic data is using ‘generative adversarial networks’, a deep learning tool which pits two distinct neural networks against one another – one with the goal of generating realistic data (generator), and one with the goal of determining whether a given dataset is real or synthetic (discriminator).

Conclusion

The generator is trained using the features of the real dataset, using random noise as a ‘seed’ value to create realistic synthetic observations. The discriminator alternates between observing the synthetic data and the real data, with the objective of correctly determining whether the data is real or synthetic. Fundamentally, one model succeeds only when the other model fails – when the generator fools the discriminator, the generator ‘reinforces’ the internal weights and biases (values that ultimately determine the output of the model) that led to this realistic dataset, while the discriminator weakens the internal weights and biases that led it to make the wrong conclusion. When the discriminator succeeds, the roles are reversed – the generator weakens its network while the discriminator strengthens its own. The competing nature of these two models leads the generator to eventually create observations that are consistently realistic to the discriminator, at which point the performance gain of subsequent model training will plateau and, in theory, the synthetic data will be sufficient for its eventual use in social science or industry.