Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Learning Individual Reproductive Behavior from Aggregate Fertility Rates via Neural Posterior Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Age-specific fertility rates alone can recover individual reproductive behavior, including desired family size, timing, and contraceptive failure, via neural posterior estimation.

desk verdict Promising approach with a strong validation design, but the fecundability function as written admits negative probabilities, so the central claim is not supported as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22607 v2 pith:DDJ4HNSS submitted 2025-06-27 stat.AP cs.LG

Daniel Ciganda , Ignacio Campón , Iñaki Permanyer , Jakob H Macke This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.APcs.LG
keywords age-specificfertilityratessequentialneuralposteriorestimationsimulation-basedinferencereproductivebehaviormicrosimulationBayesiancontraceptivefailuredesiredfamilysize
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Contemporary fertility schedules are aggregates that hide the individual decisions behind them. This paper claims those aggregates still carry enough information to recover the behavioral parameters that generated them—desired family size, the timing of intentional reproduction, birth spacing, and contraceptive failure—if an interpretable individual-level simulation is coupled to modern Bayesian inference. The authors validate the claim on four cohorts spanning different fertility regimes, and the central evidence is out-of-sample: a model trained only on age-specific fertility rates predicts the observed distributions of age at first sex, desired family size, and birth intervals. If correct, population forecasts could be built from explicit behavioral mechanisms rather than extrapolated trend lines, with much lower data requirements than current microsimulation practice.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupling of an interpretable individual-level microsimulator with Sequential Neural Posterior Estimation (SNPE), specifically the Automatic Posterior Transformation variant in which a neural spline flow learns the posterior p(θ | ASFRs) from simulated parameter-data pairs. The simulator tracks a cohort of women month by month; each woman draws lognormal ages at sexual initiation and intentional reproduction, a Weibull desired family size, and a lognormal birth spacing. Monthly conception probability is baseline fecundability φ(x) modeled with two Bernstein basis polynomials, and contraception multiplies it by κ, then by κ² once desired parity is reached. The aggregate summaries are the only observations, so SNPE must invert an intractable likelihood; the paper shows that this inversion succeeds and that adding age-specific unplanned fertility rates or informative priors sharpens the timing parameters.

What would settle it

Fit the same model to a DHS cohort in which most births to women under 18 are reported as planned or wanted, using only ASFRs, and compare the posterior-predicted distributions of age at first sex, desired family size, and birth intervals against the survey microdata; if the distributions diverge badly while the ASFR fit remains good, the population-selection criterion is load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the micro-macro gap in fertility research can be closed: aggregate age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) are a sufficient statistical input for recovering interpretable micro-level parameters of reproductive behavior. Using cross-validation on simulated data, the authors show that all eleven parameters of their monthly-step simulation—ages of sexual initiation and intentional reproduction, desired family size and spacing distributions, contraceptive failure, and the age-fecundability curve—are identifiable from ASFRs alone, with most posterior distributions substantially sharper than their priors. The central empirical result is that posterior samples trained only on ASFRs generate synthetic life histories whose distributions of age at first sex, desired family size, and birth intervals match survey microdata that never entered the estimation. The paper frames this as a statistically grounded bridge from population-level records to the behavioral mechanisms that drive fertility trends.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis is restricted to populations where more than half of births to women under 18 were declared unplanned; if that selection is doing the work, the findings may not extend to settings where early childbearing is intended or marriage-centered.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Behaviorally meaningful parameters—mean desired family size, age at intentional reproduction, and contraceptive failure—can be estimated for any population with ASFRs, even without micro-survey data.
  • The same framework can generate complete synthetic life histories, so building microsimulation models no longer requires individual-level training data.
  • Fertility forecasts can be made behaviorally explicit: future scenarios become changes in underlying behavioral parameters rather than extrapolated aggregate schedules.
  • Adding informative priors or age-specific unplanned fertility rates sharpens estimates of timing parameters like birth spacing and the gap to intentional reproduction.
  • The model tracks unplanned births even when trained only on overall rates, which makes unintended fertility analyzable in data-scarce settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper's own selection criterion—populations where most under-18 births are declared unplanned—means the strongest form of the claim is conditional; outside such settings, unplanned-fertility data or different summary statistics may be required.
  • If the identifiability result generalizes, long ASFR time series from vital statistics could be mined to track historical shifts in desired family size and contraceptive failure without any new surveys.
  • The model's smooth desired-family-size distribution cannot represent the sharp norm-driven spike at exactly two children seen in the data; a mixture distribution with mass at two children is a direct testable extension that should reduce the reported Peru mismatch.
  • A natural next application is education- or region-disaggregated ASFRs, which the paper identifies as a route to modeling heterogeneity in reproductive behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a likelihood-free Bayesian framework that couples an interpretable, individual-level simulation model of reproductive behavior with Sequential Neural Posterior Estimation (SNPE), with the goal of inferring micro-level behavioral parameters from aggregate age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs). The model assigns each simulated woman an age at sexual initiation, an age at intentional reproduction, a desired family size, and a desired birth spacing, and simulates monthly conception under a fecundability curve with contraceptive failure. The authors evaluate the framework in three scenarios: weak priors with ASFRs only, informative priors with ASFRs, and weak priors with both ASFRs and age-specific unplanned fertility rates (ASUFRs). Validation consists of 25-fold cross-validation on simulated data, posterior predictive checks for observed ASFRs, and out-of-sample comparisons of simulated micro-level distributions (age at first sex, desired family size, birth intervals) against survey data for cohorts in the United States, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru. The central claim is that core behavioral parameters governing contemporary fertility can be recovered from ASFRs alone.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would be a valuable methodological contribution: it would demonstrate that a behaviorally explicit microsimulation model can be estimated from widely available aggregate data, reducing the data requirements for microsimulation and opening the door to behaviorally grounded forecasts. The validation strategy is thoughtfully designed: the 25-fold cross-validation directly probes internal identifiability, the posterior predictive checks assess aggregate fit, and the Scenario 1 out-of-sample comparisons are genuinely external because micro-level distributions are not used in estimation. The four-country comparison across different fertility regimes is a strength, as is the use of a modern SBI method in a demographic application. However, two issues substantially weaken the paper as written: the fecundability curve is not constrained to be a valid probability, and the main out-of-sample validation is presented as a point-prediction exercise despite large posterior uncertainty in several timing parameters.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, fecundability expression] The monthly conception probability is specified as φ(x) = β1[3xs(1−xs)^2] + β2[3xs^2(1−xs)], with no constraint stating that φ must lie in [0,1]. The prior shown in Figure 3 assigns substantial mass to negative β2 values, and the Scenario 1 posteriors for all four countries also have negative β2 support. For a posterior-supported pair such as β1≈0.4 and β2≈−0.3, evaluating at xs≈0.7 gives φ≈−0.057, a negative probability. As written, the simulator is therefore not a valid generative model on a non-negligible part of the parameter space, and the SNPE posterior is not a posterior for any coherent stochastic process. If the implementation clips or rejects negative φ values, then the actual generative model differs from the one described, and the reported posterior predictive checks and out-of-sample distributions validate a different model. This issue must be resolved, for example by reparameterizing β1 and β2 with explicit bounds or by specifying and justifying a clipping/projection rule in the model definition, and the experiments should be rerun under the corrected simulator.
  2. [§5.3.1, Figure 4] The main out-of-sample validation is presented as a comparison between observed micro distributions and a single simulation driven by the posterior mean, yet Figure 4's caption refers to 'posterior draws', and the appendix figures are described as posterior predictive distributions. This inconsistency matters because Figure 3 shows that several timing parameters, especially δr, μb, and σb, have wide posteriors that remain close to their priors under Scenario 1. A single point prediction can appear accurate by averaging over competing behavioral explanations, and it does not convey the posterior uncertainty in the predicted micro distributions. The paper should report posterior predictive distributions with credible intervals for the out-of-sample micro outcomes, and should clarify whether the appendix figures already do so.
  3. [§5.3 / abstract] The abstract states that the framework 'successfully recovers core behavioral parameters governing contemporary fertility, including ... reproductive timing', but Section 5.3 explicitly reports that δr, μb, and σb are poorly constrained by ASFRs alone, with posteriors close to their priors. The cross-validation section reports lower RMSE in Scenarios 2 and 3 for nearly every parameter, but it does not quantify how poorly δr, μb, and σb are recovered in Scenario 1. The claims in the abstract and Discussion should be tempered to reflect that ASFRs alone identify the level and shape of fertility well but provide limited information on the precise timing of intentional reproduction and spacing.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§5.2.1] There is a typo: 'the observed ASRFs' should read 'the observed ASFRs'.
  2. [§4 / GitHub statement] The GitHub repository is described as private with access on request. For a methods paper whose central contributions are reproducibility and a new estimation workflow, a public code release (or an anonymized supplement at review time) is important for verification of the fecundability issue raised above.
  3. [Figure 1] The cross-validation scatterplots in Figure 1 lack axis labels and units, making it difficult to assess the scale of recovery errors. Adding units and, ideally, error bars or credible intervals for the posterior means would improve interpretability.
  4. [§4.2] The prior distributions for β1 and β2 are described only in prose; the text should state the exact distribution families and hyperparameters, especially because the fecundability constraint issue hinges on the prior support.
  5. [§3] The country-selection criterion is a substantive modeling assumption; it would be helpful to state in the abstract or introduction that the framework is evaluated in settings where early fertility is predominantly unintended, so that readers immediately understand the scope of the empirical claims.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central Scenario 1 derivation is self-contained; auxiliary Scenarios 2 and 3 contain construction-based circularity for the desired-family-size validation.

  1. self definitional [Section 3 (ASUFR classification) via Scenario 3 (Section 4.1) and Appendix Figure 8]
    "Scenario 3: ASFRs and ASUFRs with Weak Priors. This scenario tests the impact of adding more detailed data. We revert to the weakly informative priors from Scenario 1, but we augment the summary statistics to include both simulated ASFRs and age-specific unplanned fertility rates. … The classification of a birth as unplanned is based on a harmonized strategy across the DHS and NSFG that combines direct survey questions about birth timing with a parity check (i.e., whether the birth exceeded the mother’s ideal family size)."

    In Scenario 3, ASUFRs are added as summary statistics, and those ASUFRs are constructed from each mother's ideal family size via the parity check. The model's own D_i is 'desired family size', and Appendix Figure 8 validates the model against the survey desired-family-size distribution under Scenario 3. The validation target is therefore the same construct that was used to define part of the inference data, so Scenario 3's agreement on desired family size is partially built in by construction. This is a scenario-level circularity; the main-text Scenario 1 results do not use ASUFRs.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1 (Scenario 2 informative priors) and Appendix Figure 8]
    "The informative priors used in Scenario 2 simulate a context where a researcher might leverage external information to improve estimates. For the mean desired family size ( µd), we construct the prior directly from the empirical survey distribution for the U.S. case, mimicking a situation where such summary data is readily available. For the remaining two parameters, we simulate the process of knowledge transfer from a data-rich to a data-poor setting by using the posteriors from our most data-intensive setup (Scenario 3) as the informative priors for Scenario 2."

    Scenario 2 is presented as a test of informative priors, and Appendix Figure 8 presents Scenario 2 as 'out-of-sample validation for the distribution of Desired Family Size'. But for the U.S., the Scenario 2 prior on μd is constructed directly from the empirical survey distribution of desired family size, so the posterior predictive distribution of that same outcome is forced by the prior, not discovered from ASFRs. The δr and μb priors are taken from Scenario 3 posteriors, which in turn used ASUFRs built from the ideal-family-size construct, so they are not independent external constraints. The claim 'none of which inform the estimation step' is therefore not true of Scenario 2, although it is true of Scenario 1.

full rationale

The central derivation chain for the paper's headline claim is Scenario 1: ASFRs with weak priors. In that scenario, the simulator maps parameters (including μd, δr, κ, β1, β2) to aggregate ASFRs; no micro-level distribution enters the estimation. The cross-validation, posterior predictive checks, and out-of-sample comparisons to age at first sex, desired family size, and birth intervals are external to the fitted data, so the main claim does not reduce to its inputs. The two circularities found are confined to auxiliary inference scenarios: Scenario 3's ASUFR summary statistics are partially defined by ideal family size, the same construct used to validate desired family size; and Scenario 2 constructs its μd prior from the empirical target distribution. Because these scenario-level validations are presented as supporting out-of-sample evidence (Appendix Figures 7-9), the paper somewhat overstates the breadth of its validation, but the central Scenario 1 result remains independent. The self-citation to Ciganda and Todd (2024) is contextual rather than load-bearing. The Bernstein-coefficient sign issue raised by the skeptic is a model-validity/correctness concern, not a circularity, and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 11 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical entities; its constructs (desired family size, intentional reproduction, contraceptive failure) are existing demographic concepts. The central claim rests on eleven fitted parameters plus strong parametric and selection assumptions. The non-negativity of fecundability is an implicit, unenforced assumption.

free parameters (11)
  • µs (mean age at sexual initiation) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; lognormal location.
  • σs (SD of age at sexual initiation) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; lognormal scale.
  • δr (gap between sexual initiation and intentional reproduction) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; weakly identified.
  • σr (SD of age at intentional reproduction) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; weakly identified.
  • µd (mean desired family size) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; Weibull mean.
  • σd (SD of desired family size) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; Weibull spread.
  • µb (mean desired birth spacing) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; weakly identified.
  • σb (SD of desired birth spacing) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; weakly identified.
  • κ (monthly contraceptive failure probability) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; reduced to κ² after desired parity.
  • β1 (Bernstein coefficient for fecundability peak) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; controls fecundability level.
  • β2 (Bernstein coefficient for fecundability decline) = posterior mean varies by country (Figure 3)
    Estimated from ASFRs via SNPE; can be negative, no positivity constraint described.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Age at sexual initiation, age at intentional reproduction, and birth spacing follow lognormal distributions; desired family size follows a Weibull distribution
    Section 2.1 assigns these parametric forms. If misspecified, the inferred behavioral parameters would be biased.
  • domain assumption Fecundability is modeled by two Bernstein basis polynomials of degree 3, forced to zero at ages 10 and 50
    Section 2.1. This smooth two-parameter form is a strong restriction on the age pattern of conception.
  • domain assumption Contraceptive use is binary (trying versus not trying), with failure probability κ or κ² after reaching desired parity
    Section 2. Real contraceptive behavior is more heterogeneous.
  • domain assumption Cohorts are homogeneous: all women share the same parameter distributions
    Section 2 and Discussion; the authors list this as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Selected DHS countries represent populations where early childbearing is primarily unintended
    Section 3 uses this to justify model applicability; selection is based on the share of unplanned births to women under 18.
  • standard math SNPE/APT with neural spline flows yields asymptotically correct posterior approximations
    Section 4, Algorithm 1. Standard result for simulation-based inference assuming sufficient simulations and network capacity.
  • standard math Survey sampling weights yield unbiased population estimates
    Section 3, IFSS weights for NSFG and DHS sampling design.
  • domain assumption Fecundability remains non-negative for all parameter settings
    No positivity constraint is described in Section 2.1, yet β2 can be negative in the prior and posterior.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Individual Reproductive Behavior from Aggregate Fertility Rates via Neural Posterior Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DDJ4HNSS

@misc{pith2026250622607,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Individual Reproductive Behavior from Aggregate Fertility Rates via Neural Posterior Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DDJ4HNSS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22607}
}
read the original abstract

Age-specific fertility rates (ASFRs) provide the most extensive record of reproductive change, but their aggregate nature obscures the individual-level behavioral mechanisms that drive fertility trends. To bridge this micro-macro divide, we introduce a likelihood-free Bayesian framework that couples a demographically interpretable, individual-level simulation model of the reproductive process with Sequential Neural Posterior Estimation (SNPE). We show that this framework successfully recovers core behavioral parameters governing contemporary fertility, including preferences for family size, reproductive timing, and contraceptive failure, using only ASFRs. The framework's effectiveness is validated on cohorts from four countries with diverse fertility regimes. Most compellingly, the model, estimated solely on aggregate data, successfully predicts out-of-sample distributions of individual-level outcomes, including age at first sex, desired family size, and birth intervals. Because our framework yields complete synthetic life histories, it significantly reduces the data requirements for building microsimulation models and enables behaviorally explicit demographic forecasts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22607 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-validation over 25 folds. Columns 1–3 display scatterplots of true parameter values (horizontal axis) versus posterior mean estimates (vertical axis) for Scenarios 1, 2, and 3, with the dashed 45◦ reference line indicating perfect recovery. Column 4 reports the scenario-specific normal￾ized root-mean-squared error. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior Predictive Checks for Age-Specific Fertility Rates. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Marginal posterior distributions of the eleven key model parameters for the United States, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru, inferred from empirical data under Scenario 1. 5.3.1 Out-of-Sample Validation To assess the model’s ability to generate realistic individual-level reproductive behaviors not directly used in parameter estimation, we use parameter values representative of the posterior distribution (speci… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Validation on micro-level outcomes. Purple bars denote the observed survey distributions, while red bars show the model-implied counterparts generated from posterior draws. Columns display key behavioral dimensions: age at first sex, desired family size, and birth inte…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Full posterior predictive checks for both Age-Specific Fertility Rates (ASFRs) and Un￾planned Fertility Rates (ASUFRs) across all three inference scenarios. Each panel compares the ob￾served rates with the 95% posterior predictive interval generated under a given scena…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of marginal posterior distributions across the three inference scenarios. Each panel shows the posterior for a given parameter (rows) and country (columns). The distributions for Scenario 1 (light purple), Scenario 2 (orange), and Scenario 3 (red) are overla…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Out-of-sample validation for the distribution of Age at First Sex. Each panel compares the observed survey distribution (purple bars) with the estimated posterior predictive distribution (red line) for each country (rows) and inference scenario (columns) [PITH_FULL_IM…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Out-of-sample validation for the distribution of Desired Family Size. Each panel compares the observed survey distribution (purple bars) with the model-implied posterior predictive distribution (red line) for each country (rows) and inference scenario (columns) [PITH_…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Out-of-sample validation for the distribution of Birth Intervals. Each panel compares the observed survey distribution (purple bars) with the model-implied posterior predictive distribution (red line) for each country (rows) and inference scenario (columns). References…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Simulation-Based Inference: A Practical Guide

    stat.ML 2025-08 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

    A practical tutorial for simulation-based inference, with a structured workflow, reusable code, and three worked examples validated by calibration diagnostics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Female age-related fertility decline

    (2014). Female age-related fertility decline. Committee Opinion No. 589, American College of Ob- stetricians and Gynecologists 123 (3), 719–721. Published jointly in Obstetrics & Gynecology and Fertility & Sterility. 29

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Beaumont, M. A. (2010). Approximate bayesian computation in evolution and ecology.Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 41 , 379–406

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    and C.-i

    Bendel, J.-P. and C.-i. Hua (1978). An estimate of the natural fecundability ratio curve. Social biology 25(3), 210–227

    work page 1978

  4. [4]

    Deistler, M

    Boelts, J., M. Deistler, M. Gloeckler, Á. Tejero-Cantero, J.-M. Lueckmann, G. Moss, P. Steinbach, T. Moreau, F. Muratore, J. Linhart, et al. (2024). sbi reloaded: a toolkit for simulation-based inference workflows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.17337

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Bongaarts, J. (1977). A dynamic model of the reproductive process. Population Studies 31(1), 59–73

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Bongaarts, J. and R. Lightbourne (1992). Fertility preferences in latin america: trends and differentials in seven countries. Notas De Población 20(55), 79–102

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Brass, W. (1958). The distribution of births in human populations in rural taiwan. Population Stud- ies 12(1), 51–72

    work page 1958

  8. [8]

    Brass, W. (1974). Perspectives in population prediction: Illustrated by the statistics of england and wales. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society 137 (4), 532–570

    work page 1974

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Casterline, J. B. and L. O. El-Zeini (2007). The estimation of unwanted fertility. Demography 44(4), 729–745

    2007

  2. [10]

    Chandola, T., D. A. Coleman, and R. W. Hiorns (1999). Recent european fertility patterns: Fitting curves to’distorted’distributions. Population Studies, 317–329

    1999

  3. [11]

    Ciganda, D. and N. Todd (2024). Modelling the age pattern of fertility: an individual-level approach. Royal Society Open Science 11 (11), 240366

    2024

  4. [12]

    Coale, A. J. and T. J. Trussell (1974). Model fertility schedules: variations in the age structure of childbearing in human populations. Population index, 185–258

    1974

  5. [13]

    Dax, M., S. R. Green, J. Gair, N. Gupte, M. Pürrer, V . Raymond, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buo- nanno, and B. Schölkopf (2025). Real-time inference for binary neutron star mergers using machine learning. Nature 639(8053), 49–53

    2025

  6. [14]

    Deistler, M., J. H. Macke, and P. J. Gonçalves (2022). Energy-efficient network activity from disparate circuit parameters. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119 (44), e2207632119

    2022

  7. [15]

    Dunson, D. B., B. Colombo, and D. D. Baird (2002). Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Human reproduction 17(5), 1399–1403

    2002

  8. [16]

    Bekasov, I

    Durkan, C., A. Bekasov, I. Murray, and G. Papamakarios (2019). Neural spline flows. Advances in neural information processing systems 32

    2019

  9. [17]

    Gini, C. (1924). Premières recherches sur la fécondabilité de la femme. In North-Holland: (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Mathematical Congress. , V olume V ol. 2., Toronto. 30 Gonçalves, P. J., J.-M. Lueckmann, M. Deistler, M. Nonnenmacher, K. Öcal, G. Bassetto, C. Ch...

    1924

  10. [18]

    Nonnenmacher, and J

    Greenberg, D., M. Nonnenmacher, and J. Macke (2019). Automatic posterior transformation for likelihood-free inference. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pp. 2404–2414. PMLR

    2019

  11. [19]

    Groschner, L. N., J. G. Malis, B. Zuidinga, and A. Borst (2022). A biophysical account of multiplica- tion by a single neuron. Nature 603(7899), 119–123

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hartig, F., J. M. Calabrese, B. Reineking, T. Wiegand, and A. Huth (2011). Statistical inference for stochastic simulation models–theory and application. Ecology letters 14(8), 816–827

    2011

  13. [21]

    Henry, L. (1953). Fondements théoriques des mesures de la fécondité naturelle. Revue de l’Institut International de Statistique / Review of the International Statistical Institute 21 (3), 135–151

    1953

  14. [22]

    Hoem, B. and J. M. Hoem (1989). The impact of women’s employment on second and third births in modern sweden. Population Studies 43(1), 47–67. Kerry L. D., Lindsay Mallick, and Courtney Allen (2017). Sexual and reproductive health in early and later adolescence: DHS data on yo...

    1989

  15. [23]

    Larsen, U. and S. Yan (2000). The age pattern of fecundability: an analysis of french canadian and hutterite birth histories. Social biology 47 (1-2), 34–50

    2000

  16. [24]

    Potter, R. G. (1972). Additional births averted when abortion is added to contraception. Studies in family planning 3(4), 53–59

    1972

  17. [25]

    Ridley, J. C. and M. C. Sheps (1966). An analytic simulation model of human reproduction with demographic and biological components. Population Studies 19(3), 297–310

    1966

  18. [26]

    Schmertmann, C. P. (2003). A system of model fertility schedules with graphically intuitive parame- ters. Demographic research 9, 81–110

    2003

  19. [27]

    Schwartz, D. and M. J. Mayaux (1982). Female fecundity as a function of age: results of artificial insemination in 2193 nulliparous women with azoospermic husbands. New England Journal of Medicine 306(7), 404–406

    1982

  20. [28]

    Singh, S. (1963). Probability models for the variation in the number of births per couple. Journal of the American Statistical Association 58 (303), 721–727

    1963

  21. [29]

    Sobotka, T. and É. Beaujouan (2014). Two Is Best? The Persistence of a Two-Child Family Ideal in Europe. Population and Development Review 40(3), 391–419

    2014

  22. [30]

    Rozet, O

    Vasist, M., F. Rozet, O. Absil, P. Mollière, E. Nasedkin, and G. Louppe (2023). Neural posterior estimation for exoplanetary atmospheric retrieval. Astronomy & Astrophysics 672, A147. 31 von Krause, M., S. T. Radev, and A. V oss (2022). Mental speed is high until age 60 as rev...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Weinstein, M., J. W. Wood, M. A. Stoto, and D. D. Greenfield (1990). Components of age-specific fecundability. Population Studies 44(3), 447–467

    1990

  24. [32]

    Collumbien, E

    Wellings, K., M. Collumbien, E. Slaymaker, S. Singh, Z. Hodges, D. Patel, and N. Bajos (2006). Sexual behaviour in context: a global perspective. The Lancet 368(9548), 1706–1728

    2006

  25. [33]

    Wesselink, A. K., K. J. Rothman, E. E. Hatch, E. M. Mikkelsen, H. T. Sørensen, and L. A. Wise (2017). Age and fecundability in a north american preconception cohort study. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 217 (6), 667–e1

    2017

  26. [34]

    Westoff, C. F. and N. B. Ryder (2015). The contraceptive revolution. Princeton University Press

    2015

  27. [35]

    Xie, Y . (2000). Demography: Past, present, and future. Journal of the American Statistical Associa- tion 95(450), 670–673. 32

    2000

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.