Refugee Outcomes

The exponential growth of wireless devices is driving unprecedented spectrum demand, pushing spectrum management toward more fine-grained decisions across space, time, and device constraints. As a result, spectrum policymakers and engineers must process large volumes of data that come from diverse sources and take many different forms, such as text and tables. These data sources are often disaggregated and require significant time and effort to integrate, search, and interpret. Furthermore, most of this information is formatted for human understanding and is not readily accessible to automated systems. To address this challenge, we propose SpecMind, a novel Multi-Agent Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for spectrum intelligence that performs reasoning over heterogeneous data sources. This system enables autonomous agents to coordinate specialized sub-agents that retrieve and synthesize knowledge across policy proceedings, legal regulations, and license databases. We develop SpecBench, a question and answer (Q&A) dataset based on real-world license records and policy proceedings, addressing the lack of evaluation resources for RAG systems in the spectrum domain. Experimental results demonstrate that SpecMind outperforms traditional, general-purpose RAG systems across spectrum-related tasks, achieving over 80% win rate against strong baselines. The agent-based design enables more accurate retrieval, better contextual reasoning, and improved task completion across diverse query types.

We study the problem of fair online resource allocation, motivated by applications such as refugee resettlement and airline scheduling, where agents arrive sequentially and must be assigned to facilities with limited capacities. We introduce a model that maximizes the overall welfare subject to resource constraints and a Lipschitz fairness requirement, which ensures that similar agents arriving in the same batch receive similar expected outcomes. We first analyze the offline problem, proving that the value of the optimal fair allocation is at least an $Ω(1/γ)$ fraction of the optimal unfair allocation, where $γ$ is the fairness coefficient, thereby bounding the price of fairness. For the online setting, we propose an algorithm based on dual mirror descent that enforces fairness constraints within batches while estimating optimal dual variables. We prove that this algorithm achieves sublinear regret relative to the optimal offline fluid benchmark. Finally, we validate our theoretical results using real-world data from the Refugee Economies Programme, demonstrating the algorithm's performance and examining the trade-offs between welfare maximization and fairness enforcement.

Five years after the discovery of persistent anti-Muslim bias in large language models, most evaluations remain confined to single-turn prompt completion, a setting that no longer reflects how frontier LLMs are deployed. We introduce \textbf{MIRAGE} (Muslim-Identity Reasoning and Agentic Generation Evaluation), a benchmark of 1{,}200 prompts spanning three deployment-realistic conditions: direct completion, chain-of-thought reasoning, and simulated agentic decision-making across content moderation, lending triage, refugee claim summarization, and hiring screens. Across six frontier models, we find that (i) chain-of-thought reasoning \emph{amplifies} rather than suppresses Muslim-violence associations by 12--34% relative to direct completion, (ii) agentic decisions exhibit a 9--22 percentage-point asymmetry between Muslim and matched non-Muslim cases on identical evidence, and (iii) bias is sharply time-coupled to retrieved news context, increasing 18--27% under recent-conflict retrieval. Existing prompt-based mitigations transfer poorly across our three conditions, suppressing direct-completion bias while leaving agentic asymmetry largely intact. We release MIRAGE and an open evaluation harness to support targeted mitigation research.

The deployment of LLM-based agents in scientific analysis raises opposing concerns: that agents may reduce methodological diversity, or that they may amplify the analytic flexibility through which researchers reach motivated conclusions. We argue these worries target two empirically separable layers: a design layer of methodological choices, and a verdict layer in which a decision rule maps estimates to a substantive claim. We test both by running 20 independent executions of Claude Code and Codex on a prominent immigration and social-policy against a many-analysts human baseline. At the design layer, Codex matches human methodological diversity and Claude Code produces nearly three times as many specifications; both agents' effect estimates remain broadly aligned with the human consensus, and no agent model exactly matches any human model. A prompt-induced anti-immigration researcher prior reorganizes each agent's methodological decisions but, unlike for biased human analysts in the same data, does not shift aggregate estimates or final verdicts; nor do agents reroute along the methodological axes humans use to bias their estimates. At the verdict layer, an explicit confirmatory prompt flips Claude Code's verdicts from 10% to 90% support while leaving its coefficient distribution essentially unchanged, operating through rule omission rather than rule softening. AI agents can rival or exceed human methodological diversity at the design layer while remaining vulnerable at the verdict layer. In our setting, the locus of AI bias is not estimation but interpretation.

Frame analysis of migration news is a socially consequential task: media scholars and researchers who study how migration is narrated need tools that are not only accurate, but transparent, auditable, and accessible within the resource constraints typical of academic research groups. Existing LLM-based approaches rely on proprietary APIs and large models that raise concerns about data privacy, reproducibility and equitable access among media researchers. This work studies how a locally deployable open-source LLM can support interpretable frame analysis as an assistive tool. We introduce a Structured Chain-of-Thought (SCoT) prompting approach using Llama3-8B, enabling step-by-step justifications grounded in predefined framing categories. This structured design allows users to audit model outputs and examine alternative interpretations in a task that is inherently subjective. We evaluate our approach on a dataset of migration-related news and show that SCoT improves classification performance over zero-shot and few-shot baselines while remaining feasible on a single GPU. Then, we conduct a human-centered evaluation in which annotators assess the coherence and influence of "the model's reasoning". Results indicate that SCoT explanations are generally perceived as logical (mean score 4.1/5, though with notable variation across texts) and can prompt reflection on initial interpretations, even when disagreement persists. Our findings highlight both the potential and risks of LLM-assisted frame analysis. While structured reasoning can increase the traceability of model outputs and support critical interpretation, it can also influence human judgment in subtle ways. By enabling local deployment and emphasizing human-in-the-loop interaction, this work contributes to discussions on responsible and accessible computational tools for the study of socially impactful media narratives.

U.S. immigration law spans thousands of pages of official policy, federal regulations, and procedural guidance that change frequently and carry high stakes for petitioners who lack legal representation. We describe the construction of ImmigrationQA, a source-grounded question-answering dataset of 17,058 pairs across 13 immigration subdomains, and the fine-tuning of a Llama 3.2 3B Instruct model on that dataset using parameter-efficient LoRA. The corpus was assembled from 11 primary and secondary sources -- including the USCIS Policy Manual, 8 CFR, BIA precedent decisions, and community Q&A -- yielding 10,056 validated canonical documents and 18,308 text chunks. Structured QA pairs were generated from these chunks using Claude Sonnet 4.6 via five mode-specific prompts, with 22 pairs rejected for insufficient source-span overlap. The fine-tuned model was evaluated against a held-out split of 993 pairs using LLM-as-judge scoring on a 101-example stratified sample. The fine-tuned model scored a mean of 1.08/3.0 (16.8% fully correct; 101-example stratified eval) versus the Llama 3 8B base model at 0.85/3.0 (4% fully correct), a relative improvement of 27% in mean score; a zero-shot Claude Sonnet baseline scored 1.52/3.0 (25% fully correct). The fine-tuned model shows concentrated improvement in procedural subdomains (travel documents, adjustment of status, nonimmigrant visas) while remaining weak on complex legal reasoning and time-sensitive statistics. The full pipeline ran for approximately $29 in cloud compute. All artifacts -- dataset, model, code, and prompt templates -- are publicly released. The system is not a substitute for legal counsel and does not reflect regulatory changes after the corpus crawl date.

Since public access to generative AI tools became widespread, federal civil litigation has seen a marked increase in pro se (self-represented) plaintiffs. This paper analyzes that shift using ~2.8 million filings, asking whether the post-GenAI period is associated not only with more pro se filings, but also with detectable changes in complaint text, litigation outcomes, and the composition of pro se litigants. Using civil filing data from FY2008-2025, we find that the federal civil pro se plaintiff rate rose from 11.33% pre-GenAI to 16.94% post-GenAI, a 5.61 percentage-point increase that persists after trend and covariate-adjusted robustness checks. We then focus on Civil Rights and Other Statutory cases, where the increase is especially pronounced, and link case metadata to pro se complaints. Drawing on stylometric AI detection indicators, we develop an interpretable measure of AI-consistent drafting. Against a threshold calibrated to the pre-GenAI baseline, the net AI-flagged share is 13.9% of post-GenAI non-form complaints. Analysis of the AI-flagged complaints shows that they are more citation-dense, disproportionately associated with first-time rather than repeat filers, and geographically unevenly distributed. This composition pattern suggests that AI-consistent drafting is not merely a repeat-filer phenomenon; it also includes a modest, suggestive increase in name-inferred female plaintiffs. We find no evidence of improved win rates; in fact, AI-flagged complaints are more likely to be dismissed and to terminate at earlier procedural phases. These findings raise new questions about access to justice and court screening burdens, and sharpen the distinction between legal formality and legal efficacy.

As mobile service robots increasingly coexist with pedestrians, ensuring passively safe behaviour during confined emergency evacuations is critical. Existing multi-robot yielding strategies often focus solely on collision avoidance and macroscopic flow optimisation, overlooking environmental affordances and human spatial expectations. To bridge the gap between macroscopic theory and micro-level perception, we conducted a game-based virtual evacuation experiment (N=56). We investigated individual psychological responses to four multi-robot yielding strategies (Hide, LineEscape, Freeze, ShortestPath) across confined corridors with and without refuge niches. Our results establish a robust preference hierarchy (Hide > LineEscape > Freeze > ShortestPath), demonstrating that proactive space-yielding significantly outperforms freezing and efficiency-first approaches. Crucially, we found that environmental affordances heavily shape cognitive expectations. Actively utilising available niches amplifies the psychological comfort of proactive yielding (Hide). Conversely, failing to use an obvious niche (e.g., executing LineEscape) may trigger Expectation Violation. This is reflected in a drastically increased perceived cognitive delay, despite objectively unimpeded trajectories. Furthermore, prior robot interaction experience helps users decode complex social intents. Ultimately, this research demonstrates that safe human-robot interaction during emergencies must evolve from pure trajectory optimisation to semantically aware navigation. Future work will extend this framework to investigate complex interactions between robot swarms and pedestrian crowds.

Off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to automate text annotation, yet their effectiveness remains underexplored for underrepresented languages and specialized domains where the class definition requires subtle expert understanding. We investigate LLM-based annotation for a novel legal NLP task: identifying the presence and sentiment of credibility assessments in asylum decision texts. We introduce RAB-Cred, a Danish text classification dataset featuring high-quality, expert annotations and valuable metadata such as annotator confidence and asylum case outcome. We benchmark 21 open-weight models and 30 system-user prompt combinations for this task, and systematically evaluate the effect of model and prompt choice for zero-shot and few-shot classification. We zoom in on the errors made by top-performing models and prompts, investigating error consistency across LLMs, inter-class confusion, correlation with human confidence and sample-wise difficulty and severity of LLM mistakes. Our results confirm the potential of LLMs for cost-effective labeling of asylum decisions, but highlight the imperfect and inconsistent nature of LLM annotators, and the need to look beyond the predictions of a single, arbitrarily chosen model. The RAB-Cred dataset and code are available at https://github.com/glhr/RAB-Cred

Pretrial risk assessment tools are used on over one million U.S. defendants each year, yet their use for predicting rare violent re-offense faces a basic statistical barrier. We derive a universal precision bound -- the Likelihood Ratio Wall -- showing that when violent re-arrest rates are low (2-5%), achieving even a 50% hit rate among people labeled "high risk" (positive predictive value, or PPV) would require tools far more discriminative than current instruments appear to be. For rare outcomes, a tool can have respectable-looking performance metrics and still be wrong most of the time it flags someone as "high risk for violence." We show that post-hoc score recalibration cannot solve this problem because it does not improve the tool's underlying ability to separate true positives from false positives. We further prove a Surveillance Ceiling: when over-policing inflates recorded "risk factors" among those who would not re-offend, the maximum achievable precision is structurally lower for over-policed groups, even at equal offense rates. We translate these results into the Number Needed to Detain (how many people must be detained to prevent one violent offense), and propose that risk reports should communicate this uncertainty explicitly. Our findings suggest that for rare violent outcomes, debates about fairness metrics alone are incomplete: under current data regimes, the available features may not support high-confidence individualized detention decisions.

Previous research has investigated the potential of refugee matching for boosting refugee outcomes, first considered by Bansak et al. (2018). This paper demonstrates the stability of counterfactual impact evaluation results in the context of refugee matching in the United States using a range of off-policy evaluation methods. In order to estimate counterfactual impact and test the robustness of our results, we employ several evaluation methods, including inverse probability weighting (IPW) and multiple variants of augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW). We also consider various modifications, including alternative modeling architectures and different assignment procedures. The impact estimates remain consistent in magnitude in all scenarios as well as statistically significant in most cases. Furthermore, the estimates are also consistent with the results originally presented in Bansak et al. (2018).

Metaphors are powerful framing devices, yet their source domains alone do not fully explain the specific associations they evoke. We argue that the interplay between source domains and semantic frames determines how metaphors shape understanding of complex issues, and present a computational framework that allows to derive salient discourse metaphors through their source domains and semantic frames. Applying this framework to climate change news, we uncover not only well-known source domains but also reveal nuanced frame-level associations that distinguish how the issue is portrayed. In analyzing immigration discourse across political ideologies, we demonstrate that liberals and conservatives systematically employ different semantic frames within the same source domains, with conservatives favoring frames emphasizing uncontrollability and liberals choosing neutral or more ``victimizing'' semantic frames. Our work bridges conceptual metaphor theory and linguistics, providing the first NLP approach for discovery of discourse metaphors and fine-grained analysis of differences in metaphorical framing. Code, data and statistical scripts are available at https://github.com/julia-nixie/ConceptFrameMet.