Vyoma Raman

Faiz Surani, Mirac Suzgun, Vyoma Raman et al.

Legal reform can be challenging in light of the volume, complexity, and interdependence of laws, codes, and records. One salient example of this challenge is the effort to restrict and remove racially restrictive covenants, clauses in property deeds that historically barred individuals of specific races from purchasing homes. Despite the Supreme Court holding such racial covenants unenforceable in 1948, they persist in property records across the United States. Many jurisdictions have moved to identify and strike these provisions, including California, which mandated in 2021 that all counties implement such a process. Yet the scale can be overwhelming, with Santa Clara County (SCC) alone having over 24 million property deed documents, making purely manual review infeasible. We present a novel approach to addressing this pressing issue, developed through a partnership with the SCC Clerk-Recorder's Office. First, we leverage an open large language model, finetuned to detect racial covenants with high precision and recall. We estimate that this system reduces manual efforts by 86,500 person hours and costs less than 2% of the cost for a comparable off-the-shelf closed model. Second, we illustrate the County's integration of this model into responsible operational practice, including legal review and the creation of a historical registry, and release our model to assist the hundreds of jurisdictions engaged in similar efforts. Finally, our results reveal distinct periods of utilization of racial covenants, sharp geographic clustering, and the disproportionate role of a small number of developers in maintaining housing discrimination. We estimate that by 1950, one in four properties across the County were subject to racial covenants.

Kaitlyn Zhou, Kristina Gligorić, Myra Cheng et al.

Although language model-based chat systems are increasingly used in daily life, most Americans remain non-adopters of chat-based LLMs -- as of June 2025, 66% had never used ChatGPT. At the same time, LLM development and evaluation rely mainly on data from adopters (e.g., logs, preference data), focusing on the needs and tasks for a limited demographic group of adopters in terms of geographic location, education, and gender. In this position paper, we argue that incorporating non-adopter perspectives is essential for developing broadly useful and capable LLMs. We contend that relying on methods that focus primarily on adopters will risk missing a range of tasks and needs prioritized by non-adopters, entrenching inequalities in who benefits from LLMs, and creating oversights in model development and evaluation. To illustrate this claim, we conduct case studies with non-adopters and show: how non-adopter needs diverge from those of current users, how non-adopter needs point us towards novel reasoning tasks, and how to systematically integrate non-adopter needs via human-centered methods.

Vyoma Raman, Catherine Vera, CJ Manna

In this study, we introduce a novel two-pronged scoring system to measure individual and systemic bias in immigration courts under the U.S. Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR). We analyze nearly 6 million immigration court proceedings and 228 case features to build on prior research showing that U.S. asylum decisions vary dramatically based on factors that are extraneous to the merits of a case. We close a critical gap in the literature of variability metrics that can span space and time. Using predictive modeling, we explain 58.54% of the total decision variability using two metrics: partisanship and inter-judge cohort consistency. Thus, whether the EOIR grants asylum to an applicant or not depends in majority on the combined effects of the political climate and the individual variability of the presiding judge - not the individual merits of the case. Using time series analysis, we also demonstrate that partisanship increased in the early 1990s but plateaued following the turn of the century. These conclusions are striking to the extent that they diverge from the U.S. immigration system's commitments to independence and due process. Our contributions expose systemic inequities in the U.S. asylum decision-making process, and we recommend improved and standardized variability metrics to better diagnose and monitor these issues.

Vyoma Raman, Eve Fleisig, Dan Klein

The impact of AI models on marginalized communities has traditionally been measured by identifying performance differences between specified demographic subgroups. Though this approach aims to center vulnerable groups, it risks obscuring patterns of harm faced by intersectional subgroups or shared across multiple groups. To address this, we draw on theories of marginalization from disability studies and related disciplines, which state that people farther from the norm face greater adversity, to consider the "margins" in the domain of toxicity detection. We operationalize the "margins" of a dataset by employing outlier detection to identify text about people with demographic attributes distant from the "norm". We find that model performance is consistently worse for demographic outliers, with mean squared error (MSE) between outliers and non-outliers up to 70.4% worse across toxicity types. It is also worse for text outliers, with a MSE up to 68.4% higher for outliers than non-outliers. We also find text and demographic outliers to be particularly susceptible to errors in the classification of severe toxicity and identity attacks. Compared to analysis of disparities using traditional demographic breakdowns, we find that our outlier analysis frequently surfaces greater harms faced by a larger, more intersectional group, which suggests that outlier analysis is particularly beneficial for identifying harms against those groups.