Explainable Machine Learning for Broadband Adoption Disparities: Tract-Level Prediction and SHAP-Based Factor Profiling
Organizations: Independent Researcher San Jose, CA, USA
Abstract
The United States has allocated approximately $65 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for broadband expansion, yet evidence-based methods for targeting these investments remain underdeveloped. This paper presents an explainable machine learning framework for profiling broadband adoption disparities at census-tract granularity across 83,359 tracts nationwide. Using 65 socioeconomic, demographic, and infrastructure features derived from the American Community Survey 2022, we train a LightGBM model under spatial five-fold cross-validation, achieving R^2 = 0.533 and Spearman rho = 0.763; state-held-out cross-validation (51 folds) confirms generalization (R^2 = 0.525). TreeSHAP analysis identifies income and education as the dominant factor group (with the engineered interaction term absorbing attribution from its constituent features), and SHAP-based clustering reveals three exploratory factor profiles: Well-Connected Moderate (~49K tracts), Affordability-Limited Severe (~21K tracts), and Rural-Elderly (~13K tracts). As a screening tool, ML-based tract selection captures 38.0% of the total adoption gap within the top 10% of tracts versus 35.2% for income-only heuristics (+2.8 pp, p < 0.002, county-block bootstrap); in regret-reduction terms, the model closes 19% of the remaining gap between income-only and oracle selection. The primary contribution is the per-tract factor decomposition: SHAP identifies which feature groups (income/education, rurality, age) are most strongly associated with each tract's predicted gap, and informs differentiated investigation. A temporal stability check, training on ACS 2017 and predicting ACS 2022 with zero survey-year overlap, confirms ranking stability (rho = 0.784, noting hyperparameters tuned on 2022 data).
Figures & tables
| Model | RMSE | MAE | Spearman | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LightGBM | 0.069 | 0.049 | 0.533 | 0.763 |
| XGBoost | 0.069 | 0.049 | 0.530 | 0.762 |
| CatBoost | 0.069 | 0.049 | 0.529 | 0.762 |
| Random Forest | 0.071 | 0.050 | 0.515 | 0.759 |
| Ridge | 0.079 | 0.053 | 0.380 | 0.733 |
| Lasso | 0.090 | 0.060 | 0.153 | 0.696 |
| Rank | Feature | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | income_x_education | 0.0230 |
| 2 | log_median_income | 0.0182 |
| 3 | pct_less_than_hs | 0.0110 |
| 4 | pct_hs_diploma | 0.0068 |
| 5 | gini_index | 0.0060 |
| 6 | elderly_x_renter | 0.0056 |
| Feature 1 | Feature 2 | Mean |
|---|---|---|
| income_x_education | log_median_income | 0.0044 |
| labor_force_part. | log_median_income | 0.0017 |
| income_x_education | labor_force_part. | 0.0012 |
| log_median_income | pct_less_than_hs | 0.0008 |
| income_x_education | pct_less_than_hs | 0.0007 |
| log_median_income | pct_hs_diploma | 0.0006 |
| Metric | Moderate | Severe | Rural–Elderly |
|---|---|---|---|
| tracts | 49,417 | 21,116 | 12,826 |
| Mean adoption gap | 0.095 | 0.106 | |
| Poverty rate | 8.5% | 25.2% | 13.8% |
| % High school | 7.4% | 20.0% | 12.3% |
| % Bachelor’s+ | 43.3% | 17.2% | 19.4% |
| % Age 65+ | 17.4% | 14.8% | 21.1% |
| Strategy | Gap Covered | % Total |
|---|---|---|
| Gap-Ranked (oracle) | 2,057.8 | 49.8% |
| Model-Predicted | 1,571.0 | 38.0% |
| Income-Only | 1,455.2 | 35.2% |
| Random | 836.5 | 20.2% |
| MP Income: pp [2.3, 3.7], | ||
| Metric | Within-vintage | Temporal |
|---|---|---|
| Spearman | 0.763 | 0.784 |
| (raw) | 0.533 | 0.187 |
| (recalibrated) | — | 0.598 |
| Screening gain (pp) | +2.8 | +3.2 |