How much effort should be spent to detect fraudulent applications when engaged in classifier-based lending?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Credit scoring is an automated, objective and consistent tool which helps lenders to provide quick loan decisions. It can replace some of the more mechanical work done by experienced loan officers whose decisions are intuitive but potentially subject to bias. Prospective borrowers may have a strong motivation to fraudulently falsify one or more of the attributes they report on their application form. Applicants learn about the characteristics that are used to build credit scoring models, and may alter the answers on their application form to improve their chance of loan approval. Few automated credit scoring models have considered falsified information from borrowers. We will show that sometimes it is profitable for financial institutions to spend money and effort to identify dishonest customers. We will also find the optimal effort that banks should spend on identifying these liars. Furthermore, we will show that it is possible for liars to eventually adjust their lies to escape from credit checks. The proposed issue will be studied using simulated data and discriminant analysis. This research can help lending financial institutions to reduce risk and maximize profit, and it also shows that it is feasible for customers to lie intelligently so as to evade credit checks and get loans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".