Sensitivity of collective outcomes identifies pivotal components.

A social system is susceptible to perturbation when its collective properties depend sensitively on a few pivotal components. Using the information geometry of minimal models from statistical physics, we develop an approach to identify pivotal components to which coarse-grained, or aggregate, properties are sensitive. As an example, we introduce our approach on a reduced toy model with a median voter who always votes in the majority. The sensitivity of majority-minority divisions to changing voter behaviour pinpoints the unique role of the median. More generally, the sensitivity identifies pivotal components that precisely determine collective outcomes generated by a complex network of interactions. Using perturbations to target pivotal components in the models, we analyse datasets from political voting, finance and Twitter. Across these systems, we find remarkable variety, from systems dominated by a median-like component to those whose components behave more equally. In the context of political institutions such as courts or legislatures, our methodology can help describe how changes in voters map to new collective voting outcomes. For economic indices, differing system response reflects varying fiscal conditions across time. Thus, our information-geometric approach provides a principled, quantitative framework that may help assess the robustness of collective outcomes to targeted perturbation and compare social institutions, or even biological networks, with one another and across time.

A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Building on developments in machine learning and prior work in the science of judicial prediction, we construct a model designed to predict the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States in a generalized, out-of-sample context. To do so, we develop a time-evolving random forest classifier that leverages unique feature engineering to predict more than 240,000 justice votes and 28,000 cases outcomes over nearly two centuries (1816-2015). Using only data available prior to decision, our model outperforms null (baseline) models at both the justice and case level under both parametric and non-parametric tests. Over nearly two centuries, we achieve 70.2% accuracy at the case outcome level and 71.9% at the justice vote level. More recently, over the past century, we outperform an in-sample optimized null model by nearly 5%. Our performance is consistent with, and improves on the general level of prediction demonstrated by prior work; however, our model is distinctive because it can be applied out-of-sample to the entire past and future of the Court, not a single term. Our results represent an important advance for the science of quantitative legal prediction and portend a range of other potential applications.