QUANT EXCELddjdjjddjdjdjdjdjdjdididdddddd
QUANT EXCELddjdjjddjdjdjdjdjdjdididdddddd
🔷 1. What is ROC?
ROC = Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve
🔷 2. What is AUC?
AUC = Area Under the ROC Curve
It is the area under this ROC curve. The value of AUC ranges from 0 to 1:
For example:
If AUC = 0.85, it means there is an 85% chance that the model will rank a positive case
higher than a negative one.
If your model gives a fraud score, the ROC curve checks how well those scores help
separate fraud from normal transactions.
The AUC tells how good your model is at ranking fraud higher than normal.
🔷 5. Graphical View
The ROC curve starts at (0,0) and ends at (1,1).
The better the model, the more the ROC curve bows towards the top-left corner (higher
TPR with low FPR), and the larger the area under the curve.
(In this image: The red line is a random guess model (AUC = 0.5), while the blue curves
represent better models.)
🔷 6. Benefits of AUC
• Threshold Independent: AUC evaluates performance over all thresholds, not just
one.
• Robust Metric: It works well even when the dataset is imbalanced (e.g., 95% non-
fraud, 5% fraud).
🔷 7. Limitations
• It does not tell you about actual values or errors, just ranking.
• Can be misleading when used with imbalanced datasets without additional
metrics like Precision, Recall, F1 Score, etc.
• It does not consider calibration (i.e., how close predicted probabilities are to true
probabilities).
🔷 8. Comparison Table
Metric Description
Accuracy Measures overall correct predictions
How many predicted positives were actually
Precision
positive
Recall How many actual positives were captured
How well the model ranks positive vs. negative
AUC
cases
KS
✅ What is KS?
KS stands for Kolmogorov–Smirnov Statistic.
The KS statistic tells us how well the model separates the positive class (e.g., defaults)
from the negative class (e.g., non-defaults).
🔷 Interpretation of KS Value
Model
KS Value (%)
Performance
> 40% Excellent
30–40% Good
20–30% Fair
< 20% Poor
0% Model is useless
The higher the KS, the better the model separates positives from negatives.
🔷 Visual Understanding
A KS plot typically shows two lines:
The point where the gap between these two lines is the widest is the KS statistic.
Then subtract:
A high AUC generally implies a high KS, but KS gives you the best score threshold for
class separation.
• Very popular in credit scoring and banking (e.g., predicting default risk).
• Helps identify the cut-off score that maximizes discrimination between default and
non-default.
• Used in model validation (scorecard, PD models).
🔷 Summary
Term Meaning
Maximum difference between % of positives and % of negatives at a score
KS
threshold
Good
Typically above 30% in real-world credit models
KS
GINI
✅ What is Gini?
Gini coefficient (or Gini index) is a measure of model discrimination — that is, how well
a model distinguishes between the two classes: positive (e.g., defaulter) and negative
(e.g., non-defaulter).
It is based on the AUC (Area Under the Curve) of the ROC curve.
🔷 Gini Formula
Gini=2×AUC−1\text{Gini} = 2 \times \text{AUC} - 1Gini=2×AUC−1
So, if:
Gini ranges from -1 to +1, but in practice we usually see 0 to 1 (or 0% to 100%).
In simple terms:
If a model gives high scores to defaulters and low scores to non-defaulters, it will have a
high Gini.
🔷 Visual Explanation
A Gini coefficient is the ratio of the area between the model’s ROC curve and the
diagonal (random model), compared to the total area under the diagonal.
🔷 Gini vs AUC vs KS
Met
Range Based On Indicates
ric
Overall ability to rank positives over
AUC 0–1 ROC Curve
negatives
-1 to +1 (usually
Gini AUC Strength of discrimination
0–1)
Max separation in TPR-
KS 0–1 or 0–100% Best cutoff separation
FPR
🔷 Real-Life Example
Let’s say a credit risk model has:
• AUC = 0.79
Then:
• Gini = 2 × 0.79 – 1 = 0.58 (or 58%)
This means the model has moderate-to-good discriminatory power.
🔷 Summary
Term Gini Coefficient
Meaning How well a model separates the two classes
Formula Gini = 2 × AUC – 1
Good Value > 60%
Credit scoring, model validation, discrimination
Use Case assessment
PSI
✅ What is PSI?
PSI (Population Stability Index) is a metric used to measure the shift or change in the
distribution of a variable (usually a model score or input variable) between:
It tells you whether the model is still working on new data as it did during development.
It’s most commonly used to track model input drift and score distribution drift over
time.
🔷 What Does PSI Measure?
PSI quantifies the difference in population between two time periods or datasets.
PSI Formula:
Where:
You calculate each component and add them up to get the PSI value.
🔷 PSI Interpretation
PSI Value Interpretation
< 0.10 No significant change → model is stable
0.10–0.25 Moderate shift → model may need attention
Major shift → model may be unstable, retraining may be
> 0.25
required
🔷 Visual Explanation
Imagine you developed a model where 10% of customers had high scores.
Now, you check current data and find only 2% have high scores.
A plot of score bins with % from old vs. new data can help visualize PSI:
matlab
CopyEdit
Score Bins Expected % Actual %
0–0.2 10% 20%
0.2–0.4 20% 25%
0.4–0.6 30% 30%
0.6–0.8 25% 15%
0.8–1.0 15% 10%
🔷 Summary
Term Population Stability Index (PSI)
Track changes in score or variable distributions over
Purpose
time
(A−E)×ln(A/E)(A - E) \times \ln(A/E)(A−E)×ln(A/E)
Formula
summed over bins
Good PSI < 0.10
Moderate
0.10–0.25
concern
Serious concern > 0.25
Use Monitor drift in models in production
✅ 2. Gini Coefficient
Gini and AUC are directly linked — if AUC is high, Gini is high.
✅ 3. KS (Kolmogorov–Smirnov Statistic)
📊 Summary Table
To evaluate the model based on the provided metrics—AUC (66.77%), KS (33.16%), Gini
(33.54%), and PSI (13.96%)—let’s break down what each metric indicates, followed by
positive and negative observations about the model’s performance and stability. I’ll
assume this is a binary classification model (e.g., for credit risk, fraud detection, or similar
use cases), as these metrics are commonly used in such contexts.
Positive Observations
Negative Observations
Overall Assessment
The model shows moderate predictive ability but falls short of industry standards for
robust classification tasks. Its AUC, KS, and Gini metrics indicate it can distinguish
between classes better than random guessing but not with high confidence or precision.
The PSI suggests moderate data drift, which could further erode performance if
unaddressed. While the model is a reasonable starting point, it likely requires
improvement to be production-ready for critical applications.
Recommendations
Negative Observations
1. Weak Discrimination: AUC, KS, and Gini are below typical thresholds for robust models,
risking poor class separation.
2. Moderate Data Drift: PSI of 13.96% signals distribution shift, which may degrade
performance over time.
3. Potential Business Risk: Subpar metrics could lead to costly errors in high-stakes
applications.
The metrics provided—AUC (82.19%), KS (59.34%), Gini (64.38%), and PSI (1.16%)—are
commonly used to evaluate the performance and stability of a predictive model, likely a
binary classification model (e.g., for credit risk, fraud detection, or customer churn). Let’s
break down each metric, summarize key findings, and draw conclusions about the model’s
performance and characteristics.
• What it measures: The KS statistic quantifies the maximum difference between the
cumulative distribution functions of the predicted probabilities for the positive and
negative classes. It ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values indicating better
separation.
• Interpretation: A KS of 59.34% is strong, suggesting significant separation between
the distributions of the two classes. Typically:
o KS > 40% is considered good, and >50% is very good for most applications.
o This indicates the model can effectively differentiate between positive and
negative outcomes at an optimal threshold.
• Key finding: The model shows robust separation between classes, supporting its
ability to rank predictions effectively.
• What it measures: The Gini coefficient is derived from the AUC (Gini = 2 × AUC - 1)
and measures the model’s discriminatory power. It ranges from 0 to 100%, with
higher values indicating better performance.
• Calculation check: Gini = 2 × 0.8219 - 1 = 0.6438 (64.38%), which aligns with the
provided value.
• Interpretation: A Gini of 64.38% is consistent with the AUC and indicates good but
not exceptional model performance. It reflects the model’s ability to prioritize true
positives over false positives.
• Key finding: The Gini score reinforces the AUC’s indication of good discriminatory
power, though it’s not in the excellent range (>80%).
Key Findings
1. Good Discriminatory Power: The AUC (82.19%), KS (59.34%), and Gini (64.38%) all
indicate the model has strong ability to distinguish between positive and negative
classes. It performs well above random guessing and is suitable for many practical
applications, though it may not meet the highest standards for precision in critical
domains.
2. Strong Class Separation: The high KS statistic (59.34%) suggests the model can
effectively separate the two classes at an optimal threshold, making it reliable for
ranking predictions.
3. High Stability: The extremely low PSI (1.16%) indicates that the model’s predictions
are stable across datasets, suggesting it was trained on a representative dataset
and is likely to generalize well to new data with similar characteristics.
4. Room for Improvement: While the model performs well, the AUC and Gini scores
suggest there may be opportunities to enhance performance, perhaps through
feature engineering, hyperparameter tuning, or using a more complex model.
Conclusions
• Model Performance: The model is robust and reliable for binary classification
tasks, with good discriminatory power and strong class separation. It is likely
suitable for applications like credit risk assessment, fraud detection, or churn
prediction, where AUCs around 0.8 and KS scores above 50% are often acceptable.
• Stability and Generalization: The very low PSI indicates the model is stable and
should perform consistently on new data, assuming the validation or production
data is similar to the training data. This makes it a dependable choice for
deployment in stable environments.
• Potential Improvements: To push performance closer to excellent (e.g., AUC >
0.9), consider:
o Adding or engineering new features to capture more predictive signal.
o Experimenting with more advanced algorithms (e.g., gradient boosting,
neural networks) or ensemble methods.
o Fine-tuning thresholds or exploring calibration to optimize decision-making.
• Monitoring: Although the PSI is low, continuous monitoring is recommended to
ensure population stability over time, especially if the underlying data distribution
changes (e.g., due to economic shifts or new customer behaviors).
The metrics provided—AUC (89.41%), KS (74.64%), Gini (78.81%), and PSI (0.58%)—are
used to evaluate the performance and stability of a predictive model, likely a binary
classification model (e.g., for credit scoring, fraud detection, or churn prediction). Below,
I’ll analyze each metric, summarize key findings, and draw conclusions about the model’s
performance, comparing it to the previously provided metrics (AUC 82.19%, KS 59.34%,
Gini 64.38%, PSI 1.16%) where relevant.
• What it measures: The KS statistic measures the maximum difference between the
cumulative distribution functions of predicted probabilities for positive and negative
classes. It ranges from 0 to 100%, with higher values indicating better class
separation.
• Interpretation: A KS of 74.64% is excellent, showing significant improvement over
the previous model’s KS of 59.34%. It indicates a strong ability to separate the two
classes at an optimal threshold. Typically:
o KS > 50% is very good, and >70% is exceptional for most applications.
o This suggests the model is highly effective at distinguishing between
outcomes, such as identifying high-risk vs. low-risk cases.
• Key finding: The model exhibits exceptional class separation, making it highly
reliable for ranking predictions and setting decision thresholds.
Key Findings
1. Very Good Discriminatory Power: The AUC (89.41%), KS (74.64%), and Gini
(78.81%) indicate the model has very strong discriminatory ability, significantly
outperforming the previous model (AUC 82.19%, KS 59.34%, Gini 64.38%). It is
close to excellent performance, making it suitable for demanding applications.
2. Exceptional Class Separation: The KS of 74.64% reflects outstanding separation
between positive and negative classes, a substantial improvement over the
previous model’s KS of 59.34%. This makes the model highly effective for tasks
requiring clear differentiation, such as identifying high-risk cases.
3. Exceptional Stability: The PSI of 0.58% is extremely low, indicating that the
model’s predictions are highly stable across datasets, even more so than the
previous model (PSI 1.16%). This suggests robust generalization to new data with
similar characteristics.
4. Significant Improvement: Compared to the previous model, this model shows
marked improvements in discriminatory power (AUC, KS, Gini) and slightly better
stability (PSI), indicating it is a stronger and more reliable model.
Conclusions
• Model Performance: This model is highly effective for binary classification tasks,
with very good discriminatory power and exceptional class separation. It is suitable
for applications requiring high accuracy, such as credit risk assessment, fraud
detection, or medical diagnostics, and significantly outperforms the previously
evaluated model.
• Stability and Generalization: The extremely low PSI (0.58%) suggests the model is
highly stable and likely to perform consistently on new data, assuming the data
distribution remains similar. This makes it an excellent candidate for deployment in
stable environments.
• Potential for Excellence: While the model is very good (AUC 89.41%), it is just shy
of the excellent threshold (AUC > 90%). To reach this level, consider:
o Feature engineering to capture additional predictive signals.
o Exploring advanced algorithms (e.g., ensemble methods like XGBoost or
neural networks).
o Fine-tuning hyperparameters or optimizing decision thresholds for specific
use cases.
• Monitoring: Despite the low PSI, ongoing monitoring is recommended to detect any
future population drift, especially in dynamic environments where data
distributions may shift (e.g., changing customer behaviors or economic conditions).
• Comparison to Previous Model: This model is a clear improvement over the
previous one, with better discriminatory power (higher AUC, KS, Gini) and slightly
better stability (lower PSI). It is likely a more advanced or better-tuned version,
making it more suitable for critical applications.
These metrics indicate a highly effective and stable binary classification model with strong
discriminatory power and exceptional class separation. It significantly outperforms the
previously evaluated model and is well-suited for deployment in applications requiring
reliable predictions. While it approaches excellent performance, there may be minor
opportunities for further optimization to push it into the top tier (e.g., AUC > 90%).