On the combination of graph data for assessing thin-file borrowers' creditworthiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thin-file borrowers are customers for whom a creditworthiness assessment is uncertain due to their lack of credit history; many researchers have used borrowers' relationships and interactions networks in the form of graphs as an alternative data source to address this. Incorporating network data is traditionally made by hand-crafted feature engineering, and lately, the graph neural network has emerged as an alternative, but it still does not improve over the traditional method's performance. Here we introduce a framework to improve credit scoring models by blending several Graph Representation Learning methods: feature engineering, graph embeddings, and graph neural networks. We stacked their outputs to produce a single score in this approach. We validated this framework using a unique multi-source dataset that characterizes the relationships and credit history for the entire population of a Latin American country, applying it to credit risk models, application, and behavior, targeting both individuals and companies. Our results show that the graph representation learning methods should be used as complements, and these should not be seen as self-sufficient methods as is currently done. In terms of AUC and KS, we enhance the statistical performance, outperforming traditional methods. In Corporate lending, where the gain is much higher, it confirms that evaluating an unbanked company cannot solely consider its features. The business ecosystem where these firms interact with their owners, suppliers, customers, and other companies provides novel knowledge that enables financial institutions to enhance their creditworthiness assessment. Our results let us know when and which group to use graph data and what effects on performance to expect. They also show the enormous value of graph data on the unbanked credit scoring problem, principally to help companies' banking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".