Fairness Audits

Fairness auditing of text-to-image diffusion models often requires generating large numbers of images across sampling configurations, making comprehensive evaluation computationally expensive. We propose a causal-abstraction-based audit instrument for efficiently evaluating fairness under interventions on the classifier-free guidance scale. Given a fixed prompt and a target feature function, we represent the diffusion process as a low-level structural causal model and construct a corresponding high-level model over abstract denoising states. We characterize the projected causal structure, establish identifiability of the fairness-relevant interventional query, and provide sufficient conditions under which the high-level model preserves this query. A probabilistic transformer implements the high-level model as an amortized predictor of target-feature distributions across guidance scales. Experiments evaluate distributional fidelity, fairness-query accuracy, and computational efficiency. We present two auditing demonstrations: one using standard Stable Diffusion 1.5 and another using StayFair, a fairness-enhanced Stable Diffusion model, to examine their behavior across guidance scales.

Counterfactual audits are the standard tool for checking whether a clinical agent treats demographically distinct but clinically identical patients differently. They report a flip rate: how often an action changes when only the patient descriptor changes. We show that this quantity is uninterpretable on its own. Re-running an identical condition ten times over sixteen vignettes (same narrative, same descriptor string, nothing varied) moved a clinical agent's action in 8.7% of outcome-vignette cells, and instability was heterogeneous across actions by a factor of eight, from 0.022 for ICU escalation to 0.179 for controlled-substance caution. No demographic contrast in our data was distinguishable from that floor. A second model gives a pooled floor of 6.7% and ranks the six actions almost identically (Spearman 0.94, exact p=0.017), so the floor is not one system's artefact. Majority-vote aggregation over five draws removes 39% of it and then flattens, and a null simulation attributes the residue to heterogeneous per-cell rates, so replication mitigates without eliminating. Any counterfactual fairness estimate reported without a per-action floor beside it therefore cannot be read as evidence of disparity. The measurements were taken with FairMedAgent, an evaluation harness for disparity in the actions of clinical LLM agents whose estimand, the within-range counterfactual flip rate, counts only flips between actions a published decision rule admits and a clinician has adjudicated. That estimand requires band adjudication, which is under way; no disparity result is claimed here. Each synthetic vignette runs a six-stage trajectory (five model-facing decisions around a deterministic environment step) under fixed-form conditions spanning race, sex, age, insurance, English proficiency, and their intersections. The harness, the floor protocol, and every analysis script are released.

Machine learning systems deployed for credit, hiring, and resource distribution are increasingly subject to regulatory oversight from policies such as the EU AI Act and GDPR. Current fairness governance practices rely on observational fairness metrics, post-hoc explainability, and immutable audit logs, but provide limited support for causal attribution and efficient evidentiary verification. We introduce Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework in which regulated institutions commit to a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) that partitions causal pathways into allowable and disallowed groups. The Causal Harm Rate measures prediction variation attributable to disallowed causal pathways. Each decision is accompanied by a signed Decision-Evidence Packet (DEP), cryptographically binding the prediction to a digest of the published DAG and path-specific attributions. DEP digests can be appended to a Merkle tree to enable logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs. We validate CEG through a two-layer empirical methodology using demographic summaries from four years of PMA credit supervisory data to construct 10,000 synthetic credit applicants across four strategic DAG counterfactuals. Causal Harm Rate isolates injected causal effects more clearly than demographic parity or equalized odds. Cross-model validation and ablation studies assess robustness. Evaluation on the German Credit dataset shows that harm associated with specific causal pathways can be substantially understated by associational fairness metrics. Finally, a proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates operationally plausible throughput and highlights relevant performance tradeoffs.

Fairness audits in clinical Artificial Intelligence convert continuous fairness metrics into binary pass-or-fail verdicts against operational thresholds, where hospital governance boards, payers, and regulators act on the resulting verdicts. Such audits are repeated over time and across hospital sites, thus the same verdict can flip between pass and fail across audits. Existing uncertainty methods such as Bayesian posteriors, bootstrap confidence intervals, and permutation tests address verdict instability only at the continuous-metric level. Converting metric-level uncertainty into a verdict-stability claim remains a manual step that scales poorly across the (model, metric, attribute) cells an audit covers. Existing uncertainty methods also leave open whether bias-mitigation steps, such as reweighing or per-group threshold shifts, yield a stable passing verdict at the cost of model discrimination measured as AUROC or AUPRC.To address this verdict-stability gap, we propose VFR-Audit, a framework built around the Verdict Flip Rate (VFR), a scalar bounded between 0 and 0.5 that measures the probability of verdict reversal under stratified bootstrap resampling. VFR-Audit reports VFR alongside three reliability axes, namely within-cohort resampling stability, audit-size sensitivity, and cross-hospital verdict agreement via Fleiss' kappa.

Fairness evaluation in computer vision commonly relies on aggregate accuracy and demographic subgroup analysis. However, visual models are also sensitive to contextual factors such as illumination, blur, image quality, facial accessories, and appearance attributes. These factors may interact with demographic characteristics, producing hidden subgroups in which performance degrades substantially despite strong aggregate accuracy and apparently acceptable demographic fairness. To address this, we propose the Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing Framework (CIFA), a structured framework for identifying subgroup vulnerabilities arising from interactions between demographic and contextual attributes. CIFA performs demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional auditing, followed by worst-group discovery to identify and rank the most vulnerable attribute combinations. We evaluate CIFA on gender classification using ResNet-50 \cite{he2016deep} and ViT-B/16 \cite{dosovitskiy2020image} across FairFace \cite{Karkkainen2021}, CelebA \cite{Liu2015}, and UTKFace \cite{Zhang2017}. Our results show that aggregate accuracy and demographic-only evaluation can mask substantial contextual-intersectional disparities. We further assess several established mitigation strategies through an audit--mitigate--reaudit protocol and find that, although some worst-group disparities are reduced, no single strategy consistently eliminates them across datasets and architectures. These findings establish contextual-intersectional auditing as an important component of fairness evaluation and provide a reproducible framework for discovering, prioritizing, and reassessing hidden subgroup risks in face analysis systems.

Fairness audits for LLM-based recommenders have largely focused on observable outputs, implicitly assuming that stable recommendations reflect stable internal processing. We challenge this assumption with FairGap, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate recommendation fairness at two levels: observable output shift (OBS) and hidden representation shift (IBS), measured through controlled counterfactual identity probes across gender, age, and race. Their relationship is summarized via Representation-Output Alignment (ROA), with quadrant diagnostics for identifying user-level hidden-output mismatch. Applied to six open-weight LLM families across three domains, FairGap reveals pervasive hidden-output decoupling: ROA rarely exceeds 0.22, and a non-negligible user population shows stable outputs despite substantial internal shifts, a mode that output-only audits cannot detect by design. Further, activation steering that reduces IBS by up to 8x simultaneously worsens OBS, demonstrating a fundamental tension between internal and output-level fairness that existing frameworks are unequipped to diagnose.

Audits have emerged as a critical instrument for algorithmic governance, providing a mechanism for external scrutiny and governance of machine learning models. However, ensuring the integrity of such assessments remains a challenging issue. For instance in regulatory contexts, audits are typically declared or easily detected, thus enabling model providers to manipulate the process, whether intentionally or inadvertently. This vulnerability is particularly acute in the context of fairness evaluations, in which providers can often infer sensitive attributes and strategically equalize allocation rates between groups to satisfy fairness metrics. In this paper, we introduce a novel audit protocol designed to significantly increase the post-audit detectability of such manipulations by enabling the auditor to query the model in an oblivious manner. Our approach leverages a Private Information Retrieval mechanism to require the provider to label a large set of instances, while preventing it from knowing which subset will ultimately be used for the audit. The protocol is efficient, imposes minimal overhead on the auditor, and requires no modification to the audited model, its training procedure, or its inference pipeline. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that, under this protocol, a provider attempting to hide unfairness must falsify a significantly larger number of responses, thereby increasing both the difficulty and the likelihood of detection of manipulation. Experimental results across representative audit scenarios confirm the effectiveness and practicality of our approach.

Causal discovery recovers directed structure from observational data and is increasingly used in clinical settings to support mechanism reasoning and fairness audits of predictive models. Path-specific counterfactual fairness asks whether a protected attribute influences an outcome through illegitimate pathways, but these estimands are defined relative to a supplied causal graph and therefore inherit whatever errors the discovery step introduces. Discovery methods are routinely scored on aggregate structural metrics that weight all edges equally, and no established evaluation asks whether the specific pathway an audit depends on survives discovery---or what the audit reports when that pathway is missing. Here we show that full-graph Graph-of-Thoughts reasoning yields acyclic discovered graphs that are structurally competitive with large language model (LLM) baselines, yet that structural fidelity alone does not guarantee fairness-faithful audits. We introduce GoT-CD, in which the reasoning unit is a complete candidate edge set: multiple graphs are generated in parallel, scored by a deterministic validity function, and merged under a hard union constraint that forbids invented edges, with greedy projection enforcing a DAG before commitment. GoT-CD returns a valid DAG on all five reported benchmarks and achieves the best DAG-valid F1 score among LLM methods on Asia, Alzheimer's, and COVID-Respiratory datasets. On an Alzheimer's benchmark with known unfair path, a post-hoc path-specific audit shows that five of eight discovered graphs recover no path from the sensitive attribute to the outcome and therefore report a null overall effect while mediated effects persist, necessitating downstream path-specific fairness analysis along with structural discovery.

Deploying ML models in regulated decision-making (credit underwriting, fraud detection, loan approval) requires demonstrating fairness and robustness to auditors without exposing model weights or customer data. We address this attestation problem for U.S. bank supervision under SR 11-7 and OCC 2011-12 guidance. We present a chunked zero-knowledge circuit design that attests an aggregated fairness statistic - the demographic-parity gap - on committed, nonce-sampled batches of real 2022 HMDA mortgage data, and demonstrate it end-to-end: 32,768 rows, 32 independently verified zkSNARK proofs, aggregated attested gap within 0.0029 of the true held-out value, per-chunk proving under 4 seconds. We also demonstrate extensibility by attesting a second control on the identical architecture - expected calibration error at 10 bins - with all 32 chunks verified, per-chunk proving at about 14.7 seconds, and attested ECE within 0.00037 of the plaintext value on the same committed rows. We compare this design against two alternatives - a flat summation circuit, which overflows past a few thousand rows, and a tree-reduction circuit, numerically exact but intractable to compile - and find the chunked design is the only one that reached this scale. We discovered and root-caused a genuine data-quality failure (a sentinel-code outlier distorting circuit proving and the fairness statistic itself) and resolved it with a published preprocessing specification. We also propose a fuller mapping from SR 11-7 and OCC 2011-12 control language to zero-knowledge statements (nine control elements spanning soundness, calibration, robustness, and drift), a nonce-based sampling protocol resisting bank-side cherry-picking, and a threat model for deployment, proposed as design work, not implemented results. Two controls, one model class, one task are demonstrated end-to-end; the rest is scoped and left as future work.

Fairness audits are increasingly mandated in high-stakes applications such as hiring, lending, and automated decision-making. Recent work has established fundamental impossibility results for black-box fairness auditing, showing that sufficiently expressive models can evade any auditing strategy. We complement these results by quantifying the extent of unavoidable post-audit manipulation under finite audit resources. We formulate fairness auditing as a min-max optimization between a computationally unbounded company and a budget-constrained auditor. We study two auditing regimes: (i) a budgeted auditor that certifies fairness using a fixed-size audit set, and (ii) a budgeted α-tolerant auditor that additionally requires the audit set to estimate the fairness of the certified model within an α approximation. For both settings, we derive explicit lower bounds on the worst-case post-audit demographic parity deviation as functions of the audit budget, group imbalance, and fairness tolerance. Finally, we empirically illustrate these theoretical limits using simple audit-set construction heuristics with linear and neural network classifiers. Our results demonstrate that increasing audit resources reduces, but does not eliminate, the scope for post-audit manipulation, highlighting fundamental limitations of finite-budget fairness certification.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender. Recent LLM audits have produced inconsistent results, however, finding evidence of both positive and negative discrimination towards women and ethnic minorities, even for the same models. We show that this disagreement can arise from differences in audit format and introduce FairFund-Bench, a benchmark that systematically varies key features of previous audit designs: the evaluation task (rating, ranking, or allocation), comparison context (single or multi-stimulus), and whether the audit is transparent or disguised. The benchmark comprises 600 requests for financial assistance created from human-authored templates (calibrated against 1.3M real GoFundMe campaigns) across three domains, four race and two gender categories, and five causal framings of need derived from welfare deservingness theory. Across 14 models, audit format changes the direction of bias: models advantage minorities when rating claimants individually but penalize some groups when ranking them side by side. Bias magnitude, though small overall, is several times greater in disguised audits than in transparent ones, where, faced with appeals differing only in claimants' names, models overwhelmingly split funds equally. Causal framing effects, by contrast, exceed demographic effects by roughly an order of magnitude and are consistent across models and audit formats, indicating that current LLMs robustly reproduce human deservingness evaluations. The benchmark scores models on four criteria (demographic bias, deservingness alignment, cross-task consistency, and cross-context consistency), is publicly available, and can be readily adapted to other substantive domains.

Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups. Audit pipelines have been proposed to catch this, but their components are rarely stress-tested, so it is unclear which parts of an audit can be trusted and under what conditions. We present KAISEN, a five-phase audit pipeline covering subgroup stratification, disparity measurement, mechanism diagnostics, post-hoc mitigation, and drift monitoring, evaluated to the point of failure on a synthetic benchmark of 16 disease tasks, 15 social-determinant axes from Healthy People 2030, and three prespecified intersections. Four findings follow. (i) Significance tracks each axis's gap against its own minimum detectable effect: rank correlation between significance count and raw equalized-odds difference (EOD) across the 15 axes is rho = 0.56, rising to rho = 0.78 once EOD is standardized by that floor. (ii) Per-group threshold optimization reduces EOD in 48 of 48 held-out runs (paired delta = -0.285, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.252]), while group-wise Platt scaling -- the better calibrator -- behaves as a coin flip on EOD (19 of 48 runs improved, 95% CI [0.26, 0.55]) with mean effect near zero, so what an audit should report is the variance, not the average. (iii) The mechanism diagnostic classifies 144 of 144 controlled cases correctly but recovers none of 48 model-driven cases under proxy misspecification, with no signal that it failed. (iv) CUSUM failures and false alarms track cohort realization far more than disease: at the reference threshold, all 27 false alarms and 7 of 8 missed shifts come from different seeds (chi-squared p = 0.002), so a threshold tuned on one cohort fails to transfer. All results are synthetic with known ground truth and do not establish clinical validity. Code, artifacts, and scripts reproducing every number are released.

Differential privacy (DP) is increasingly deployed to limit membership inference risk in machine-learning systems. Prior work has shown that DP-SGD can widen accuracy disparities across demographic groups, but this framing treats fairness as a purely outcome-side concern. We argue that privacy cost, the information leakage borne by each group, is itself a form of harm, and adopt a compensatory-fairness framework in which a group that involuntarily bears greater privacy exposure is owed proportionally greater benefit from the system. From this principle we derive the \emph{Privacy-Cost Equity Ratio} (PCER), a group fairness metric defined as a group's positive prediction rate normalized by its per-group overfitting gap. By a standard membership inference bound, this overfitting gap upper-bounds each group's vulnerability to inference attacks, making PCER a conservative measure of benefit relative to exposure. PCER needs only per-group train and test accuracy (no shadow models), making it a practical post-hoc audit tool. We evaluate PCER alongside standard fairness metrics across six benchmark--attribute combinations spanning tabular and NLP domains, under DP-SGD at a range of privacy budgets, and validate the overfitting-gap proxy against a direct threshold membership-inference attack. The results reveal patterns that outcome-based metrics miss. On COMPAS, PCER uncovers a persistent double disadvantage: the protected group bears both greater privacy exposure and worse predictive outcomes, something demographic parity gap masks entirely. Sensitivity analysis shows very strong privacy guarantees collapse both groups' overfitting to a numerical floor, rendering exposure-based audits uninformative in that regime. Together, these findings show that fairness audits of privacy-preserving systems must account for who bears the cost of protection, not only who benefits from its outcomes.

Per-subgroup fairness audits of medical image classifiers face a sample-size problem: minority subgroups in held-out test sets have so few samples that the resulting confidence intervals on per-subgroup performance are wider than the bias the audit is meant to detect. We argue that a demographically-conditioned synthetic generator can do both: mitigate bias on the training side and detect bias on the evaluation side. Working on COVID-19 chest CT classification with an end-to-end fine-tuned Stable Diffusion 2.1 generator, we make two findings. For bias mitigation (training), a demographically-balanced synthetic cohort is most useful as a pretraining prior, not as joint augmentation: with the same fixed data, sequential pretraining followed by fine-tuning substantially outperforms joint augmentation, and the resulting classifier surpasses the full-real baseline at \sim$$100\times real-data efficiency. For bias detection (evaluation), across five synthetic minority cohorts and five classifier seeds, the synthetic estimator reproduces the subgroup ranking of a well-powered real oracle (Spearman $ρ= 1.00$ on MCC and Recall) and gives the more reliable per-cell estimate where the small real test set runs out of samples. The synthetic cohort is therefore most useful in exactly the cells that fairness audits care about, as both a fix for and a measure of subgroup bias.

Machine learning (ML) models deployed in sensitive domains such as healthcare, law enforcement, and finance must satisfy not only utility requirements but also fairness and privacy guarantees. While prior work has largely examined how privacy-preserving techniques affect fairness, the inverse question-how fairness-enhancing algorithms influence privacy leakage-remains underexplored. We present the first comprehensive study of how fairness interventions affect membership inference privacy risks at the subpopulation level. By adapting the Likelihood Ratio Attack (LiRA) for subgroup auditing, we uncover privacy disparities that aggregate evaluations obscure. We further analyze how Differential Privacy (DP) interacts with fairness-enhancing methods across different categories, showing that DP's privacy benefits and utility costs are unevenly distributed across subpopulations. Our results demonstrate that fairness interventions do not uniformly increase privacy risk; their impact depends on model architecture, subgroup size, and mitigation strategy. These findings reveal that fairness, privacy, and utility must be jointly evaluated at the subpopulation level, and we introduce the first unified empirical framework to support such auditing in practice.

Automated segmentation of cervical-spine MRI is increasingly used in clinical workflows, yet no fairness audit exists for this anatomy. We show that auditing these segmentation tasks is complicated by a common property of modern segmentation datasets: expert-annotated gold labels are expensive, so abundant machine-generated (silver) labels are added to limit annotation cost. This matters because the reference used to judge a model can itself be biased. In this study, we present the first fairness audit of cervical-spine MRI segmentation across sex, age, and race using the CSpineSeg dataset. We observe that the deployed model is demographically fair, but the choice of reference label, however, is not neutral. Because a dataset's silver labels are generated by a model trained on its gold labels, any new model trained on those same gold labels agrees more with the silver labels than with expert truth: scoring identical predictions against silver rather than gold overestimates performance by ~8 Dice points and turns the fairness verdict for age from non-significant to significant - not by the gap inflation Parikh et al. report (which we term false magnitude) but by collapsing within-group variance (which we term false confidence). Reference-label provenance is thus a first-order confounder in segmentation evaluation: performance and fairness should be reported against expert labels, and any fairness claim stated together with the provenance of its reference.

External evaluations are becoming increasingly central to the governance of AI systems. In practice, however, independent auditors often have limited access to deployed models and must rely on query-based interactions. Most existing fairness evaluation methods assume static datasets and fixed-sample statistical tests, making them poorly suited to real-world auditing scenarios in which evidence must be collected sequentially under query constraints. In this work, we formulate fairness auditing as a tolerance-aware sequential hypothesis-testing problem under limited model output access. We develop a sequential generalized likelihood-ratio framework that allows auditors to accumulate evidence from a finite audit pool and stop once sufficient support for compliance or violation has been obtained. The framework is instantiated for decision-based Statistical Parity and Equal Opportunity audits, and extended to score- and logit-based proxy audits when richer observables are available. Our results show that both the fairness metric and the level of model access significantly affect audit efficiency, and that the benefits of richer output information are not uniform across auditing settings. In particular, richer outputs can substantially reduce the number of queries required for some fairness metrics and operating regimes, while offering limited gains in near-threshold cases. This work provides a practical statistical framework for sequential fairness auditing under realistic deployment constraints.

Counterfactual explanations (CFs) help understand machine learning models by identifying minimal input changes that would lead to alternative model outcomes. Recent work demonstrates their utility for reconstructing black-box models, enabling third-party auditing of opaque decision systems for fairness and accountability. Still, CF-based reconstruction may suffer from decision boundary shifts, overfitting, and restrictive assumptions requiring online query access to target platforms. We propose REconstruction via Counterfactual-Aware waSserstein opTimization (RECAST) under limited data and restricted access, a behavioral surrogate model based on Wasserstein barycentric prototypes. Our approach addresses decision boundary shifts by incorporating CFs as informative, though less representative, samples for both classes, maintaining high surrogate fidelity in low-sample regimes without requiring online access during reconstruction. To enhance fairness auditing, our method enables systematic group fairness diagnostics. Experiments on real-world datasets and various setups show that RECAST effectively achieves high fidelity and query efficiency, as well as stable results even when the access is limited and noisy.

Machine learning models trained on sensitive data can inadvertently leak population-level information about their training distributions -- a threat known as distribution inference attack (DIA). An adversary with black-box access can infer sensitive demographic properties, such as subgroup proportions, without observing any training data directly. While defenses such as differential privacy and property unlearning have been proposed, the link between fairness constraints and distributional leakage remains unexplored. We propose Fair Fine-tuning (FFt): a trained model is fine-tuned on samples from the complementary distribution under an Equalized Odds (EO) constraint. We provide a complete theoretical characterization, proving the tight bound $\text{Adv}(\mathcal{A},M_f) \le Δ_{\text{EO}} \cdot W$, where $W$ quantifies how distinguishable the two training distributions are by their sensitive-attribute composition. We also establish a necessary condition for FFt to reduce adversarial advantage and prove tightness of the bound. We evaluate across six datasets spanning tabular (ACS Income, COMPAS, German Credit), image (UTKFaces), and NLP (Bias in Bios) modalities. Rehearsal-based FFt consistently reduces the adversarial accuracy gap below the detection threshold $τ!=!0.1$ across all settings; on ACS Income, the gap falls from $\sim!15$ to under $4$. Our work provides the first formal bound connecting a model's measured EO disparity directly to its adversarial advantage in the DIA game, opening a new avenue for unified fairness-and-privacy defenses.

Emergency department triage assigns patients an acuity score that determines treatment priority, and clinical evidence documents persistent gender disparities in human acuity assessment. As hospitals pilot large language models (LLMs) as triage decision support, a critical question is whether these models reproduce or mitigate known biases. We present EQUITRIAGE, a fairness audit of LLM-based ESI assignment evaluating five models (Gemini-3-Flash, Nemotron-3-Super, DeepSeek-V3.1, Mistral-Small-3.2, GPT-4.1-Nano) across 374,275 evaluations on 18,714 MIMIC-IV-ED vignettes under four prompt strategies. Of 9,368 originals, 9,346 are paired with a gender-swapped counterfactual. All five models produced flip rates above a pre-registered 5% threshold (9.9% to 43.8%). Two showed directional female undertriage (DeepSeek F/M 2.15:1, Gemini 1.34:1); two were near-parity; one had high sensitivity with weak male-direction asymmetry. DeepSeek's directional bias coexisted with a low outcome-linked calibration gap (0.013 against MIMIC-IV admission), a Chouldechova-style dissociation between within-group calibration and between-pair counterfactual invariance. Demographic blinding reduced Gemini's flip rate to 0.5%; an age-preserving blind variant left DeepSeek with residual F/M 1.25, implicating age as a residual channel. Chain-of-thought prompting degraded accuracy for all five models. A two-model ablation reveals opposite underlying mechanisms for the same directional phenotype: in Gemini the signal is emergent in the combined name+gender swap, while in DeepSeek the gender token alone carries it. EQUITRIAGE shows that group parity, counterfactual invariance, and gender calibration are distinct fairness properties, that intervention effectiveness is model-dependent, and that per-model counterfactual auditing should precede clinical deployment.

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.

The evaluation of machine learning models typically relies mainly on performance metrics based on loss functions, which risk to overlook changes in performance in relevant subgroups. Auditing tools such as SliceFinder and SliceLine were proposed to detect such groups, but usually have conceptual disadvantages, such as the inability to directly address continuous covariates. In this paper, we introduce FairTree, a novel algorithm adapted from psychometric invariance testing. Unlike SliceFinder and related algorithms, FairTree directly handles continuous, categorical, and ordinal features without discretization. It further decomposes performance disparities into systematic bias and variance, allowing a categorization of changes in algorithm performance. We propose and evaluate two variations of the algorithm: a permutation-based approach, which is conceptually closer to SliceFinder, and a fluctuation test. Through simulation studies that include a direct comparison with SliceLine, we demonstrate that both approaches have a satisfactory rate of false-positive results, but that the fluctuation approach has relatively higher power. We further illustrate the method on the UCI Adult Census dataset. The proposed algorithms provide a flexible framework for the statistical evaluation of the performance and aspects of fairness of machine learning models in a wide range of applications even in relatively small data.

We present PopResume, a population-representative resume dataset for causal fairness auditing of LLM- and VLM-based resume screening systems. Unlike existing benchmarks that rely on manually injected demographic information and outcome-level disparities, PopResume is grounded in population statistics and preserves natural attribute relationships, enabling path-specific effect (PSE)-based fairness evaluation. We decompose the effect of a protected attribute on resume scores into two paths: the business necessity path, mediated by job-relevant qualifications, and the redlining path, mediated by demographic proxies. This distinction allows auditors to separate legally permissible from impermissible sources of disparity. Evaluating four LLMs and four VLMs on PopResume's 60.8K resumes across five occupations, we identify five representative discrimination patterns that aggregate metrics fail to capture. Our results demonstrate that PSE-based evaluation reveals fairness issues masked by outcome-level measures, underscoring the need for causally-grounded auditing frameworks in AI-assisted hiring.

Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic biases across demographic groups. Auditing is proposed as an accountability tool for black-box LLM applications, but suffers from resource-intensive query access. We conceptualise auditing as uncertainty estimation over a target fairness metric and introduce BAFA, the Bounded Active Fairness Auditor for query-efficient auditing of black-box LLMs. BAFA maintains a version space of surrogate models consistent with queried scores and computes uncertainty intervals for fairness metrics (e.g., $Δ$ AUC) via constrained empirical risk minimisation. Active query selection narrows these intervals to reduce estimation error. We evaluate BAFA on two standard fairness dataset case studies: \textsc{CivilComments} and \textsc{Bias-in-Bios}, comparing against stratified sampling, power sampling, and ablations. BAFA achieves target error thresholds with up to 40$\times$ fewer queries than stratified sampling (e.g., 144 vs 5,956 queries at $\varepsilon=0.02$ for \textsc{CivilComments}) for tight thresholds, demonstrates substantially better performance over time, and shows lower variance across runs. These results suggest that active sampling can reduce resources needed for independent fairness auditing with LLMs, supporting continuous model evaluations.

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.