An Empirical Comparison of Machine-Learning Methods on Bank Client Credit Assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning and artificial intelligence have achieved a human-level performance in many application domains, including image classification, speech recognition and machine translation. However, in the financial domain expert-based credit risk models have still been dominating. Establishing meaningful benchmark and comparisons on machine-learning approaches and human expert-based models is a prerequisite in further introducing novel methods. Therefore, our main goal in this study is to establish a new benchmark using real consumer data and to provide machine-learning approaches that can serve as a baseline on this benchmark. We performed an extensive comparison between the machine-learning approaches and a human expert-based model—FICO credit scoring system—by using a Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) data. As the SCF data is non-synthetic and consists of a large number of real variables, we applied two variable-selection methods: the first method used hypothesis tests, correlation and random forest-based feature importance measures and the second method was only a random forest-based new approach (NAP), to select the best representative features for effective modelling and to compare them. We then built regression models based on various machine-learning algorithms ranging from logistic regression and support vector machines to an ensemble of gradient boosted trees and deep neural networks. Our results demonstrated that if lending institutions in the 2001s had used their own credit scoring model constructed by machine-learning methods explored in this study, their expected credit losses would have been lower, and they would be more sustainable. In addition, the deep neural networks and XGBoost algorithms trained on the subset selected by NAP achieve the highest area under the curve (AUC) and accuracy, respectively.
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 | 0.036 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".