MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400982128 · doi:10.47363/jaicc/2022(1)e102

Machine Learning for Credit Risk Assessment in Banking: AnOverview

2022· article· en· W4400982128 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence & Cloud Computing · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicInsurance and Financial Risk Management
Canadian institutionsOptech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit riskBusinessActuarial scienceFinancial systemComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2019, A European bank named Deutsche Bank adopted a machine learning model into its system. This resulted in 20% within the first year, showcasing the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in the credit risk department.The evolution of machine learning models from simple statistical models to complex machine learning algorithms capable of analyzing vast amounts of datasets with high accuracy. Early machine models relied upon logistic and linear regression, but the modern approach utilizes decision trees, neural networks, and ensemble methods to enhance prediction power and reliability.This paper will talk about advancements in machine learning techniques for credit risk assessment, the benefits and challenges of integrating these models in traditional banking systems, and the emergence of these technologies in the future. It explores various algorithms, highlighting their applications and effectiveness in our daily lives. Additionally, regulatory and ethical implications are examined to provide a comprehensive overview of the post.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it