Research Article

Predicting the Quality of Life Index: A Comparative XGBoost–LSTM Study with SHAP-Based Explainable AI

Volume: 14 Number: 5 December 31, 2025
EN TR

Predicting the Quality of Life Index: A Comparative XGBoost–LSTM Study with SHAP-Based Explainable AI

Abstract

In this study, the prediction performance of different artificial intelligence algorithms was examined using quality of life data from 2016 to 2025. The analysis compared gradient-boosted tree-based XGBoost with LSTM, which has the capacity to model time series and sequential dependencies. In addition, SHAP analysis was applied to ensure the model's explainability and to identify the key factors affecting quality of life. The findings show that both models successfully capture quality of life patterns, with the LSTM model achieving higher out-of-sample accuracy than XGBoost (higher R² and lower MAE, RMSE, and MAPE). SHAP analysis revealed that Purchasing Power and Pollution are the factors with the strongest impact on quality of life. The decisive effect of Purchasing Power indicates that macroeconomic conditions such as real income level, price stability, and Purchasing Power Parity -adjusted welfare indicators directly reflect quality of life. Other factors, such as cost of living, housing price/income ratio, security, healthcare services, climate, and commute time, were found to have varying degrees of importance across countries. These findings emphasize the priority of designing macroeconomic frameworks targeting income/wage policies and price stability alongside policies aimed at improving environmental conditions. The results obtained indicate that policy makers should focus on the efficient allocation of resources. The results obtained provide policymakers with an evidence-based roadmap for the efficient allocation of resources and demonstrate that more detailed analyses can be conducted using different explainable artificial intelligence methods for future research. Additionally, to test the robustness of the model, different training/testing splits, alternative error metrics, and hyperparameter sensitivity analyses were performed; the direction and magnitude of the main findings were found to be consistent across these scenarios. Finally, SHAP-based findings provide a starting framework for policy simulations, enabling the quantitative prediction of potential welfare gains from targeted improvements in specific sub-indices.

Keywords

Quality of Life , Purchasing Power , XGBoost , LSTM , SHAP , Explainable AI

References

  1. Abegaz, T. M., Ahmed, M., Ali, A. A., & Bhagavathula, A. S. (2025). Predicting Health-Related Quality of Life Using Social Determinants of Health: A Machine Learning Approach with the All of Us Cohort. Bioengineering, 12(2), 166.
  2. Acolin, A., & Reina, V. (2022). Housing cost burden and life satisfaction. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 37(4), 1789-1815.
  3. Alkaya, A. (2024). OECD Ülkelerinin Çok Boyutlu Ölçekleme Analiziyle Daha İyi Yaşam Endeksine Göre Konumları. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(3), 1130-1156.
  4. Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., ... & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Information fusion, 58, 82-115.
  5. Bai, S., Kolter, J. Z., & Koltun, V. (2018). An empirical evaluation of generic convolutional and recurrent networks for sequence modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01271.
  6. Bengio, Y., Simard, P., & Frasconi, P. (1994). Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult. IEEE transactions on neural networks, 5(2), 157-166.
  7. Bingöl, U., & Ayhan, F. (2020). The Impact of NEET and Labor Market Indicators on Human Development: A Panel Data Analysis for EU-28 Countries. In Journal of Social Policy Conferences (No. 79, pp. 441-468). Istanbul University.
  8. Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016, August). Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 785-794).
  9. Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38(3), 303–328.
  10. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (2018). Advances in subjective well-being research. Nature human behaviour, 2(4), 253-260.
APA
Budak, İ. (2025). Predicting the Quality of Life Index: A Comparative XGBoost–LSTM Study with SHAP-Based Explainable AI. İnsan Ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 14(5), 2208-2224. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1791179