false

Explaining Risks: Axiomatic Risk Attributions for Financial Models

Explaining Risks: Axiomatic Risk Attributions for Financial Models ArXiv ID: 2506.06653 “View on arXiv” Authors: Dangxing Chen Abstract In recent years, machine learning models have achieved great success at the expense of highly complex black-box structures. By using axiomatic attribution methods, we can fairly allocate the contributions of each feature, thus allowing us to interpret the model predictions. In high-risk sectors such as finance, risk is just as important as mean predictions. Throughout this work, we address the following risk attribution problem: how to fairly allocate the risk given a model with data? We demonstrate with analysis and empirical examples that risk can be well allocated by extending the Shapley value framework. ...

June 7, 2025 · 2 min · Research Team

Attribution Methods in Asset Pricing: Do They Account for Risk?

Attribution Methods in Asset Pricing: Do They Account for Risk? ArXiv ID: 2407.08953 “View on arXiv” Authors: Unknown Abstract Over the past few decades, machine learning models have been extremely successful. As a result of axiomatic attribution methods, feature contributions have been explained more clearly and rigorously. There are, however, few studies that have examined domain knowledge in conjunction with the axioms. In this study, we examine asset pricing in finance, a field closely related to risk management. Consequently, when applying machine learning models, we must ensure that the attribution methods reflect the underlying risks accurately. In this work, we present and study several axioms derived from asset pricing domain knowledge. It is shown that while Shapley value and Integrated Gradients preserve most axioms, neither can satisfy all axioms. Using extensive analytical and empirical examples, we demonstrate how attribution methods can reflect risks and when they should not be used. ...

July 12, 2024 · 2 min · Research Team