Empirical investigations into unintended model behavior often show that the algorithm is predicting another outcome than what was intended. These exposés highlight the need to identify when algorithms predict unintended quantities - ideally before deploying them into consequential settings. We propose a falsification framework that provides a principled statistical test for discriminant validity: the requirement that an algorithm predict intended outcomes better than impermissible ones. Drawing on falsification practices from causal inference, econometrics, and psychometrics, our framework compares calibrated prediction losses across outcomes to assess whether the algorithm exhibits discriminant validity with respect to a specified impermissible proxy. In settings where the target outcome is difficult to observe, multiple permissible proxy outcomes may be available; our framework accommodates both this setting and the case with a single permissible proxy. Throughout we use nonparametric hypothesis testing methods that make minimal assumptions on the data-generating process. We illustrate the method in an admissions setting, where the framework establishes discriminant validity with respect to gender but fails to establish discriminant validity with respect to race. This demonstrates how falsification can serve as an early validity check. We also provide analysis in a criminal justice setting, where we highlight the limitations of our framework and emphasize the need for complementary approaches to assess other aspects of construct validity and external validity.
Recent work has argued normatively, on synthetic data, that evaluating survival models by discrimination alone (concordance index) yields systematically misleading model comparisons, because the metric ignores calibration and time-dependent accuracy. Whether this matters for real, published, non-clinical models has not been tested. We reproduce three published survival-ML models across three structurally distinct domains -- hard-drive failure prediction, peer-to-peer credit default, and user disengagement on digital platforms -- validate our instrument against the anchor paper's own synthetic experiment, and test five pre-registered hypotheses under a Holm-corrected family-wise error rate. Three of five reject (though one pre-registered threshold clears by a narrow margin). A model reproducing the published literature's discrimination almost exactly (C = 0.9595 vs. 0.958 reported) fails a formal calibration test at p < 0.001; a broad feature-ablation search finds no single attribute responsible for its discrimination, so the calibration failure is not a trivial shortcut artifact. A lender's estimated default risk is biased upward by roughly two percentage points, growing to nearly four in the riskiest segment, when loan prepayment is treated as non-informative censoring rather than a competing risk. A platform's churn model shows probability estimates that degrade with the horizon even as global discrimination stays within the pre-registered C-index band. A direct test of whether metric choice inverts model preference does not reject, though with limited power given two to three models per domain; the failure mode we document is better characterized as misplaced confidence in a chosen model than as choosing the wrong one. We release a pre-registered evaluation harness with full code and an annotated notebook, so these results can be verified independently and the audit extended.
Machine learning algorithms in socially sensitive domains (e.g., credit decisions) often focus on equalizing predictive outcomes. However, satisfying these metrics does not guarantee that models use the same reasoning for different groups. We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals, a hidden procedural bias'' missed by standard fairness metrics and algorithms. We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency (CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias by aligning feature attributions between individuals and their counterfactual counterparts. Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, an individual-level procedural fairness metric, and a corresponding training loss. We introduce a taxonomy identifying Regime B'' (same outcome, different reasoning) as a critical blind spot. Experiments on synthetic data, German Credit, Adult Income, and HMDA mortgage data demonstrate that outcome-fair baselines exhibit substantial hidden bias, while CEC substantially reduces it with modest utility cost.
This paper provides identification results to characterize a fairness-accuracy (FA) frontier, and statistical inference tools to test hypotheses and build a confidence set for the FA-frontier, when outcomes are observed only for selected individuals. When the selection process is unrestricted but loss is measured in specific ways, we provide a characterization of the sharp identification region of the FA-frontier. Under an assumption of unconfoundedness conditional on observables (and unrestricted loss functions), we obtain point identification and propose a debiased machine learning estimator, derive its asymptotic distribution, and show how this can be used to carry out inference for the FA-frontier. In work in progress, we extend the partial identification results to a broader class of loss functions.