Mike Li

Paul Glasserman, Mike Li

Regulatory stress tests have become one of the main tools for setting capital requirements at the largest U.S. banks. The Federal Reserve uses confidential models to evaluate bank-specific outcomes for bank-specific portfolios in shared stress scenarios. As a matter of policy, the same models are used for all banks, despite considerable heterogeneity across institutions; individual banks have contended that some models are not suited to their businesses. Motivated by this debate, we ask, what is a fair aggregation of individually tailored models into a common model? We argue that simply pooling data across banks treats banks equally but is subject to two deficiencies: it may distort the impact of legitimate portfolio features, and it is vulnerable to implicit misdirection of legitimate information to infer bank identity. We compare various notions of regression fairness to address these deficiencies, considering both forecast accuracy and equal treatment. In the setting of linear models, we argue for estimating and then discarding centered bank fixed effects as preferable to simply ignoring differences across banks. We present evidence that the overall impact can be material. We also discuss extensions to nonlinear models.

Mike Li, Daksh Mittal, Hongseok Namkoong et al.

The performance of ML models degrades when the training population is different from that seen under operation. Towards assessing distributional robustness, we study the worst-case performance of a model over all subpopulations of a given size, defined with respect to core attributes Z. This notion of robustness can consider arbitrary (continuous) attributes Z, and automatically accounts for complex intersectionality in disadvantaged groups. We develop a scalable yet principled two-stage estimation procedure that can evaluate the robustness of state-of-the-art models. We prove that our procedure enjoys several finite-sample convergence guarantees, including dimension-free convergence. Instead of overly conservative notions based on Rademacher complexities, our evaluation error depends on the dimension of Z only through the out-of-sample error in estimating the performance conditional on Z. On real datasets, we demonstrate that our method certifies the robustness of a model and prevents deployment of unreliable models.

Paul Glasserman, Mike Li

We study the behavior of linear discriminant functions for binary classification in the infinite-imbalance limit, where the sample size of one class grows without bound while the sample size of the other remains fixed. The coefficients of the classifier minimize an empirical loss specified through a weight function. We show that for a broad class of weight functions, the intercept diverges but the rest of the coefficient vector has a finite almost sure limit under infinite imbalance, extending prior work on logistic regression. The limit depends on the left-tail growth rate of the weight function, for which we distinguish two cases: subexponential and exponential. The limiting coefficient vectors reflect robustness or conservatism properties in the sense that they optimize against certain worst-case alternatives. In the subexponential case, the limit is equivalent to an implicit choice of upsampling distribution for the minority class. We apply these ideas in a credit risk setting, with particular emphasis on performance in the high-sensitivity and high-specificity regions.