Papers for
public policy teams
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Causal humility guides fair AI under uncertain cause effects
Causal Humility: Governing the Authority of Fairness Claims Under Causal Uncertainty
Abstract: AI systems increasingly shape consequential decisions in employment, lending, healthcare, and public services, making fairness an important problem for auditing and governance. Fairness assessment often requires more than identifying disparities in outcomes; it also requires understanding how those disparities arise. Causal approaches to algorithmic fairness address this explanatory problem by representing pathways through which protected attributes and other factors may influence outcomes. Yet causal reasoning in sociotechnical systems remains uncertain: relevant confounders may be unobserved, causal directions contested, and conclusions sensitive to modeling assumptions and representational choices. We introduce causal humility as a governance framework for managing the relationship between epistemic uncertainty and causal authority. Drawing on causal fairness research, epistemology, political philosophy, and science and technology studies, causal humility has four requirements: making consequential assumptions and omissions visible; preserving contestability across defensible causal accounts; recognizing indeterminacy as a legitimate analytical outcome; and maintaining proportionality between evidentiary support and institutional authority or action. We operationalize these requirements through Causal Cards, a documentation artifact for recording the causal basis, assumptions, omissions, model dependence, and governance implications of fairness claims. Using the UCI Adult dataset as a worked epistemic demonstration, we show how different causal discovery procedures applied to the same observational data render fairness-relevant pathways visible, absent, or unresolved. Causal humility treats such disagreement as information about the limits of what can responsibly be claimed and the authority those claims should carry.
Illinois corpus tracks social attitudes on Reddit from 2007 to 2023
The Illinois Social Attitudes Aggregate Corpus (ISAAC): An Open Tool and Reproducible Pipeline for Analyzing Social Group Discourse at Scale
Abstract: We introduce the Illinois Social Attitudes Aggregate Corpus (ISAAC), an open, modular, and accessible corpus of 527 million+ English-language Reddit posts selected for relevance to six key social group distinctions based on race, sexuality, age, ability, body weight, and skin tone, covering the 17-year period from 2007 to 2023. A multi-step, human-audited filtering pipeline was used to keep irrelevant content in the curated dataset below 10%, both overall and for each social group distinction. Each post was then algorithmically annotated with the user's estimated home region, along with a suite of validated off-the-shelf and custom semantic labels including moralization, sentiment, emotion, and linguistic generalization. We confirm the validity of the resulting corpus through convergent evidence linking ISAAC to macro-level societal trends, such as online search behavior, temporal spikes during major societal events (both nationally and regionally), and long-term shifts in public attitudes. By offering a unified, public infrastructure, ISAAC eliminates research fragmentation and enables seamless replication while supporting diverse empirical workflows at scale. Specifically, ISAAC allows investigators to perform cross-category comparisons, conduct high-precision tracking of long-term temporal shifts in social group discourse, and map spatial variation onto localized public opinion and policy outcomes. ISAAC's fully public, modular pipeline facilitates easy extension of the corpus to new platforms, languages, and social categories. To accommodate various research needs, ISAAC is accessible both without coding through a point-and-click website and labeler web-apps, and programmatically via an SQL playground, a Python package, and HuggingFace.
Social segregation outweighs geographical segregation in shaping connections
Unified framework for measuring segregation resolves how social and geographical space jointly shape connections
Abstract: Our understanding of how geographical and social segregation interact remains limited, as relatively few studies investigate them jointly, and existing approaches often lack a framework distinguishing geographical, social, and total segregation. Additionally, large-scale individually resolved geo-social network data are rarely publicly available. We address both. Conceptually, we develop a unified framework that measures segregation in geosocial networks by comparing network models to appropriate null models and recovers the Theil index, dissimilarity index, and network modularity as special cases. Empirically, we turn to privacy-preserving aggregated relational data (ARD): we combine the Facebook Social Connectedness Index for the US with US Census and Pew data, and introduce an ARD-compatible joint geosocial intervening-opportunities model to infer link probabilities between region--group cell pairs. Applying our segregation framework, we find that social segregation predominates over geographical segregation, with notable separation for White--Black, college-degree--no-degree, and high-income--low/middle-income across both segregation types. We find increasing social homophily with geographical distance and group-specific geographical connectivity patterns, suggesting that geographical segregation may affect cross-group connectivity not only directly but also by amplifying social segregation.