Yichen Feng

Yichen Feng, Ming Min, Jean-Pierre Fouque

The aim of this paper is to study a new methodological framework for systemic risk measures by applying deep learning method as a tool to compute the optimal strategy of capital allocations. Under this new framework, systemic risk measures can be interpreted as the minimal amount of cash that secures the aggregated system by allocating capital to the single institutions before aggregating the individual risks. This problem has no explicit solution except in very limited situations. Deep learning is increasingly receiving attention in financial modelings and risk management and we propose our deep learning based algorithms to solve both the primal and dual problems of the risk measures, and thus to learn the fair risk allocations. In particular, our method for the dual problem involves the training philosophy inspired by the well-known Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN) approach and a newly designed direct estimation of Radon-Nikodym derivative. We close the paper with substantial numerical studies of the subject and provide interpretations of the risk allocations associated to the systemic risk measures. In the particular case of exponential preferences, numerical experiments demonstrate excellent performance of the proposed algorithm, when compared with the optimal explicit solution as a benchmark.

Alessandro Doldi, Yichen Feng, Jean-Pierre Fouque et al.

In this work we propose deep learning-based algorithms for the computation of systemic shortfall risk measures defined via multivariate utility functions. We discuss the key related theoretical aspects, with a particular focus on the fairness properties of primal optima and associated risk allocations. The algorithms we provide allow for learning primal optimizers, optima for the dual representation and corresponding fair risk allocations. We test our algorithms by comparison to a benchmark model, based on a paired exponential utility function, for which we can provide explicit formulas. We also show evidence of convergence in a case for which explicit formulas are not available.

Fengqing Jiang, Yichen Feng, Yuetai Li et al.

The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through \textbf{BadScientist}, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify \textit{concern-acceptance conflict} -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.