Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background Anger dysregulation during adolescence can negatively affect emotional well-being, interpersonal relationships, and academic functioning. Although meditation and yoga-based practices have been studied for emotional regulation, predictive machine-learning approaches remain comparatively limited. This study evaluates the feasibility of predicting self-reported improvement in anger management using behavioral, lifestyle, meditation, and yoga-related characteristics. Methods A publicly available survey dataset of 400 observations is analyzed. The prediction target is the response to “Do you feel an improvement in anger management?” , with 331 “Yes” and 69 “No” responses. Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and XGBoost are evaluated using a stratified 60:40 train-test split and five-fold stratified cross-validation. Preprocessing included imputation, categorical encoding, feature selection, scaling where required, and SMOTE within the modelling pipeline. Hyperparameters are optimized using RandomizedSearchCV with weighted F1-score. Results Random Forest achieved the highest independent-test accuracy with Hold-out approach 86.25% and the highest mean five-fold accuracy 83.00 ± 1.90%. SVM and XGBoost achieved 83.75% test accuracy, while XGBoost obtained the highest mean Macro ROC-AUC 0.8447 ± 0.0489 and mean F1-score 83.01 ± 2.70% in cross-validation. Feature-importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) analyses highlighted social activity/confidence, concentration/focus, and mindfulness/presence as influential predictors. No statistically significant differences are observed between models. Conclusions Machine learning can feasibly predict self-reported improvement in anger management from meditation-, behavioral-, and lifestyle-related characteristics. RF showed the strongest overall accuracy and stability, while XGBoost demonstrated stronger cross-validated discrimination. These findings represent predictive associations rather than causal effects and require validation using larger, longitudinal, independently collected datasets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rao et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: