Explainable AI for Credit Assessment in Banks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Banks’ credit scoring models are required by financial authorities to be explainable. This paper proposes an explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) model for predicting credit default on a unique dataset of unsecured consumer loans provided by a Norwegian bank. We combined a LightGBM model with SHAP, which enables the interpretation of explanatory variables affecting the predictions. The LightGBM model clearly outperforms the bank’s actual credit scoring model (Logistic Regression). We found that the most important explanatory variables for predicting default in the LightGBM model are the volatility of utilized credit balance, remaining credit in percentage of total credit and the duration of the customer relationship. Our main contribution is the implementation of XAI methods in banking, exploring how these methods can be applied to improve the interpretability and reliability of state-of-the-art AI models. We also suggest a method for analyzing the potential economic value of an improved credit scoring model.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it