Statistical Imaginaries, State Legitimacy: Grappling with the Arrangements Underpinning Quantification in the U.S. Census

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.18636v1
• Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2026 22:07:56 GMT
• Title: Statistical Imaginaries, State Legitimacy: Grappling with the Arrangements Underpinning Quantification in the U.S. Census
• Authors: Jayshree Sarathy, danah boyd,
• Abstract summary: We argue that controversies emerge from $textitarrangements of statistical imaginaries.<n>We compare reactions to two methods designed to improve data accuracy.<n>We show how the credibility of the Census Bureau and its data stem from how statistical imaginaries are contested and stabilized.
• Score: 0.9519662954536724
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Over the last century, the adoption of novel scientific methods for conducting the U.S. census has been met with wide-ranging receptions. Some methods were quietly embraced, while others sparked decades-long controversies. What accounts for these differences? We argue that controversies emerge from $\textit{arrangements of statistical imaginaries}$, putting into tension divergent visions of the census. To analyze these dynamics, we compare reactions to two methods designed to improve data accuracy (imputation and adjustment) and two methods designed to protect confidentiality (swapping and differential privacy), offering insight into how each method reconfigures stakeholder orientations and rhetorical claims. These cases allow us to reflect on how technocratic efforts to improve accuracy and confidentiality can strengthen -- or erode -- trust in data. Our analysis shows how the credibility of the Census Bureau and its data stem not just from empirical evaluations of quantification, but also from how statistical imaginaries are contested and stabilized.

Related papers

• Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the US Census Bureau's Use of Differential Privacy [0.9519662954536724]
  The U.S. Census Bureau announced its intention to modernize its disclosure avoidance procedures for the 2020 Census.<n>The move to differential privacy introduced technical and procedural uncertainties, leaving stakeholders unable to evaluate the quality of the data.<n>This essay examines the current controversy over differential privacy as a battle over uncertainty, trust, and legitimacy of the Census.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-20T22:49:07Z)
• Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment [50.88100567472179]
  We introduce a Bayesian approach to bound unknown counterfactual fairness measures with high confidence.<n>Our results reveal a positive (spurious) effect on the COMPAS score when changing race to African-American (from all others) and a negative (direct causal) effect when transitioning from young to old age.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T18:35:08Z)
• Benchmarking Fraud Detectors on Private Graph Data [70.4654745317714]
  Currently, many types of fraud are managed in part by automated detection algorithms that operate over graphs.<n>We consider the scenario where a data holder wishes to outsource development of fraud detectors to third parties.<n>Third parties submit their fraud detectors to the data holder, who evaluates these algorithms on a private dataset and then publicly communicates the results.<n>We propose a realistic privacy attack on this system that allows an adversary to de-anonymize individuals' data based only on the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T03:20:15Z)
• Evaluating the Impacts of Swapping on the US Decennial Census [7.020785266789317]
  We describe and implement a parameterized swapping algorithm based on Census publications, court documents, and informal interviews with Census employees.<n>We provide intuition for the types of shifts induced by swapping and compare against those introduced by TopDown.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T12:51:16Z)
• Sequential Manipulation Against Rank Aggregation: Theory and Algorithm [119.57122943187086]
  We leverage an online attack on the vulnerable data collection process. From the game-theoretic perspective, the confrontation scenario is formulated as a distributionally robust game. The proposed method manipulates the results of rank aggregation methods in a sequential manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T03:31:21Z)
• Synthetic Census Data Generation via Multidimensional Multiset Sum [5.801306984707949]
  We provide tools to generate synthetic microdata solely from published Census statistics.<n>We show that our methods work well in practice, and we offer theoretical arguments to explain our performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T19:06:37Z)
• Auditing Fairness by Betting [43.515287900510934]
  We provide practical, efficient, and nonparametric methods for auditing the fairness of deployed classification and regression models.<n>Our methods are sequential and allow for the continuous monitoring of incoming data.<n>We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach on three benchmark fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-27T20:14:11Z)
• Measuring Equality in Machine Learning Security Defenses: A Case Study in Speech Recognition [56.69875958980474]
  This work considers approaches to defending learned systems and how security defenses result in performance inequities across different sub-populations. We find that many methods that have been proposed can cause direct harm, like false rejection and unequal benefits from robustness training. We present a comparison of equality between two rejection-based defenses: randomized smoothing and neural rejection, finding randomized smoothing more equitable due to the sampling mechanism for minority groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-17T16:19:26Z)
• Comment: The Essential Role of Policy Evaluation for the 2020 Census Disclosure Avoidance System [0.0]
  boyd and Sarathy, "Differential Perspectives: Epistemic Disconnects Surrounding the US Census Bureau's Use of Differential Privacy" We argue that empirical evaluations of the Census Disclosure Avoidance System failed to recognize how the benchmark data is never a ground truth of population counts. We argue that policy makers must confront a key trade-off between data utility and privacy protection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T21:41:54Z)
• Empirical Estimates on Hand Manipulation are Recoverable: A Step Towards Individualized and Explainable Robotic Support in Everyday Activities [80.37857025201036]
  Key challenge for robotic systems is to figure out the behavior of another agent. Processing correct inferences is especially challenging when (confounding) factors are not controlled experimentally. We propose equipping robots with the necessary tools to conduct observational studies on people.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-27T22:15:56Z)
• Non-parametric Differentially Private Confidence Intervals for the Median [3.205141100055992]
  This paper proposes and evaluates several strategies to compute valid differentially private confidence intervals for the median. We also illustrate that addressing both sources of uncertainty--the error from sampling and the error from protecting the output--should be preferred over simpler approaches that incorporate the uncertainty in a sequential fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-18T19:45:37Z)
• A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methods [60.04142561088524]
  We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in how reliable automatic metrics truly are. Although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do in some evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T18:28:14Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.