Skip to main content
archive
Search Submit Donate Log in
Press Enter to search · Advanced search

Computer Science > Machine Learning

arXiv:2608.19922 (cs)
[Submitted on 20 Aug 2026]

Title:Auditing Recorded Predictive Lead Service-Line Classifications Against Physical Verification: A Statewide Study of New York

Authors:Muhammad Sarmad Sohail
View a PDF of the paper titled Auditing Recorded Predictive Lead Service-Line Classifications Against Physical Verification: A Statewide Study of New York, by Muhammad Sarmad Sohail
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Under the US Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, a utility may determine a service line's material with a predictive model instead of inspecting it. New York State publishes, per address, which method was used. Almost no address carries both a model classification and a physical verification, so the check is between populations within a utility rather than paired addresses. We screen all 153 New York localities that classified at least 100 addresses this way. Seventy-five (49%), covering 125,990 addresses or 57% of those screened, record one value. Zero variance alone is not misconduct: 68 of the 75 match their own verification or have too little to test. Seven are contradicted by their own crews, six beyond any sampling explanation. Five are boroughs of New York City, which file as one system; one is East Rochester, 550 km away. New York City is the largest case: a predictive model is the recorded basis for 43,215 addresses, and on all of them the recorded material is "Known Other". The city records "Unknown" on 121,779 addresses, 1,880 already excavated, and lead on 120,692. In the model bucket both counts are zero, and the 95% upper bound on the rate is 0.0085%. Across the rest of New York the same method records lead or the hedge "Unknown but could be lead" on 12.21% of 176,888 addresses, a comparison whose weaknesses we report. The model-cleared population is newer, median year built 1984 against 1930, and construction era accounts for about a third of the gap and not the rest: holding era fixed, records-based classification finds lead at 4.3-31.9%, physical verification at 1.5-14.5%, the model in no era. Six era-aware estimators place the expected lead lines among them at 1,150-1,450. Two findings need no comparison: 7,782 of these addresses are in pre-1940 buildings, and the archived 2025 snapshot shows the public-side determination was copied from a customer-side model output.
Comments: 14 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables. Analysis code and data provenance: this https URL
Subjects: Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
ACM classes: I.2.6; G.3; K.4.1
Cite as: arXiv:2608.19922 [cs.LG]
  (or arXiv:2608.19922v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.19922
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Muhammad Sarmad Sohail [view email]
[v1] Thu, 20 Aug 2026 11:39:06 UTC (71 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Auditing Recorded Predictive Lead Service-Line Classifications Against Physical Verification: A Statewide Study of New York, by Muhammad Sarmad Sohail
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source
license icon view license
Ancillary-file links:

Ancillary files (details):

  • baseline2.py
  • estimate.py
  • extract.py
  • extract_t0.py
  • fetch_mappluto.py
  • join_pluto.py
  • make_fig_screen.py
  • make_figures.py
  • nyc_core.py
  • paper_numbers.py
  • paths.py
  • screen_extras.py
  • statewide_screen.py
  • t0_t1.py
  • (9 additional files not shown) You must enabled JavaScript to view entire file list.

Current browse context:

cs.LG
< prev   |   next >
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.CY

References & Citations

  • NASA ADS
  • Google Scholar
  • Semantic Scholar
Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Recommenders and Search Tools

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv Recommender (What is IArxiv?)
  • Author
  • Venue
  • Institution
  • Topic

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
We gratefully acknowledge support from our major funders, member institutions, , and all contributors.
About · Help · Contact · Subscribe · Copyright · Privacy · Accessibility · Operational Status (opens in new tab)
Major funding support from
Simons Foundation Simons Foundation International Schmidt Sciences