Credit Card Default Prediction: An Empirical Analysis on Predictive Performance Using Statistical and Machine Learning Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article compares the predictive capabilities of six models, namely, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), XGBoost, random forest (RF), and deep neural network (DNN), to predict the default behavior of credit card holders in Taiwan using data from the UCI machine learning database. The Python programming language was used for data analysis. Statistical methods were compared with machine learning algorithms using the confusion matrix measured in metric terms of prediction accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, G-mean, F1 score, ROC, and AUC. The dataset contained 30,000 credit card users’ information, with 6636 default observations and 23,364 nondefault cases. The study results found that modern machine learning methods outperformed traditional statistical methods in terms of predictive performance measured by the F1 score, G-mean, and AUC. Traditional methods like logistic regression were marginally better than linear discriminant analysis and support vector machines in terms of the predictive performance measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. In the modern machine learning methods, deep neural network was better in the predictive performance metrics when compared with XGBoost and random forest methods.
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 | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".