Fairness audits of institutional risk models are critical for understanding how deployed machine learning pipelines allocate resources. Drawing on multi-year collaboration with Centennial College, where our prior ethnographic work introduced the ASP-HEI Cycle, we present a replica-based audit of a deployed Early Warning System (EWS), replicating its model using institutional training data and design specifications. We evaluate disparities by gender, age, and residency status across the full pipeline (training data, model predictions, and post-processing) using standard fairness metrics. Our audit reveals systematic misallocation: younger, male, and international students are disproportionately flagged for support, even when many ultimately succeed, while older and female students with comparable dropout risk are under-identified. Post-processing amplifies these disparities by collapsing heterogeneous probabilities into percentile-based risk tiers. This work provides a replicable methodology for auditing institutional ML systems and shows how disparities emerge and compound across stages, highlighting the importance of evaluating construct validity alongside statistical fairness. It contributes one empirical thread to a broader program investigating algorithms, student data, and power in higher education.
Fairness audits are a key component of responsible machine-learning deployment. Yet, audit-recommendation reliability under incomplete protected-label access is still poorly understood. In this work, we focused on protected-label missingness in fairness mitigation audits. We introduced a seed-calibrated stress test to separate missingness effects from seed-to-seed movement already present under complete labels. Across ACS/Folktables tasks, missingness settings that retain some protected labels usually do not move selected mitigation methods beyond a complete-label seed-to-seed baseline. At 0 protected-label access, candidates collapse to an empirical-risk-minimization baseline and deterministic tie-breaking rather than revealing a broad missingness effect. We also found that threshold optimization can turn fairness gains on a single protected axis into intersectional harm above a seed baseline, and this threshold-optimizer finding persists under random-forest validation. Overall, our results highlight that protected-label missingness should be reported with seed-null calibration, candidate-set context, and intersectional consequences before it is treated as evidence of audit fragility.
The evaluation of fairness in machine learning systems has become a central concern in high-stakes applications, including biometric recognition, healthcare decision-making, and automated risk assessment. Existing approaches typically rely on a small number of fairness metrics to assess model behaviour across group partitions, implicitly assuming that these metrics provide consistent and reliable conclusions. However, different fairness metrics capture distinct statistical properties of model performance and may therefore produce conflicting assessments when applied to the same system. In this work, we investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models. Using face recognition as a controlled experimental setting, we evaluate model performance across multiple group partitions under a range of commonly used fairness metrics, including error-rate disparities and performance-based measures. Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI), a measure designed to capture the degree of inconsistency across fairness metrics. We further show that disagreement remains high across thresholds and model configurations. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.
Whether a language model looks demographically biased can depend on how the audit asks its question. A charitable-aid benchmark reports that the same models favor minority applicants when rating requests one at a time and penalize some when ranking side by side. We test whether that reversal generalizes to hiring, lending, and medical triage: 40,726 requests to five models, applications differing only in the applicant's name, and a primary test fixed before collection. It does not. None of 36 planned contrasts survives correction. The rating advantage keeps its sign at roughly half the published size, and a precision extension bounds any hiring ranking penalty below the published effect, though the lending and triage ranking floors sit above that margin, so the exclusion is conclusive for hiring ranking and for rating in all three domains only. Planted disparities tracking their injected sizes and a directional replication on the original aid materials bound these nulls. The audit is livelier than the demographics: models recognize transparent audits nearly always, tie every identical-content comparison whether the varying detail is race or a hobby, and reward first-listed candidates as much as any demographic effect we measure. Audit verdicts reflect audit construction more than demographic bias.