Algorithmic Auditing

Maximum-likelihood pairwise ranking is a com- mon computational mechanism for prioritization, reputation estimation, and comparison-driven decision support. Despite its broad use, the perturbation sensitivity of this estimator under structured changes in comparison data remains insufficiently characterized. We study this question as an applied-mathematics and computational-science problem in stability analysis. We for- mulate coordinated perturbation as a budgeted subset-selection problem over pairwise observations and introduce an Adaptive Subset Selection Attack (ASSA) as a scalable search heuristic for probing high-impact perturbation sets. Through experiments on synthetic and observed preference datasets, we show that MLE-based ranking can exhibit pronounced regime-dependent sensitivity: relatively small but coordinated perturbations may in- duce meaningful changes in output orderings, while the response profile varies across budgets and data conditions. By comparing ASSA with random, greedy, and randomized subset baselines under repeated trials, we characterize both the magnitude and the variability of perturbation-induced ranking shifts. These results position pairwise ranking sensitivity as a problem in computational reliability, numerical stability, and robustness auditing for engineering systems built on comparison-driven inference.

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.

Algorithmic audits are essential tools for examining systems for properties required by regulators or desired by operators. Current audits of large language models (LLMs) primarily rely on black-box evaluations that assess model behavior only through input-output testing. These methods are limited to tests constructed in the input space, often generated by heuristics. In addition, many socially relevant model properties (e.g., gender bias) are abstract and difficult to measure through text-based inputs alone. To address these limitations, we propose a white-box sensitivity auditing framework for LLMs that leverages activation steering to conduct more rigorous assessments through model internals. Our auditing method conducts internal sensitivity tests by manipulating key concepts relevant to the model's intended function for the task. We demonstrate its application to bias audits in four simulated high-stakes LLM decision tasks. Our method consistently indicates substantial dependence on protected attributes in model predictions, even in settings where standard black-box evaluations suggest little or no bias. Our code is openly available at https://github.com/hannahxchen/llm-steering-audit

The symbol grounding problem asks how a token such as cat can be about cats. We propose a framework for auditing grounding claims against a declared semantic standard. The audit reports measurements and evidence, with overall verdicts conditional on explicit acceptance criteria. Its profiles assess accuracy, robustness, and composition alongside evidence about how the system acquired its mechanisms, how they contribute to performance, and why they were retained. In a toy gridworld, an agent interprets individual symbols accurately but fails a withheld combination. Composing its interpretations by the declared rule would succeed. This comparison identifies a departure from the composition rule within the observed failure. Both this audit and a pilot on pretrained word vectors provide evidence that a designated mechanism contributes to present performance. Whether that contribution explains its retention remains uncertified. The framework evaluates the evidence for grounding claims; candidate accounts remain responsible for explaining how meaning emerges.

Modern computer systems rely on syslog, a universal protocol that records critical events across heterogeneous infrastructure. Medicine's rapidly growing AI stack has no equivalent. As medicine deploys AI tools at scale, there is no standard way to record how, when, by whom, and for whom these models are used. Without such records, it is difficult to measure real-world performance and outcomes, detect adverse events, or identify bias and dataset drift. Here we introduce MedLog, a protocol for event-level logging of medical AI. Each time an AI model interacts with a human, another algorithm, or an automated workflow, MedLog creates a record. Each record contains nine core fields: header, model, user, target, inputs, artifacts, outputs, outcomes, and feedback. We apply MedLog across four deployments in the US, Switzerland, and Vietnam: ICU deterioration prediction, tetanus progression monitoring from wearable signals, automated sepsis quality reporting, and patient attendance prediction. MedLog records capture model behavior, workflow interactions, and downstream outcomes, including AI performance degradation during severe weather events in patient attendance prediction and increased laboratory testing after ICU deterioration alerts. MedLog limits the data footprint through risk-based sampling, lifecycle-aware retention policies, and write-behind caching, enabling deployment in low-resource settings. It also supports detailed traces for complex, agentic, or multi-stage workflows, creating a foundation for continuous monitoring, auditing, and improvement of medical AI.

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.