Machine Learning Approaches to Credit Risk: Comparative Evidence from Participation and Conventional Banks in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examines the application of advanced machine learning (ML) techniques for forecasting credit risk in Islamic (participation) and traditional banks in the United Kingdom in 2010–2023. Leveraging an equally weighted panel dataset and guided by robust empirical literature, we integrate structural econometric modeling—i.e., the stochastic frontier approach (SFA) to measuring the Lerner index of market power—with current best-practice tree-based ML algorithms (CatBoost, XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest) to predict non-performing loans (NPLs). The results show that bank-level financial performance measures, particularly loan ratio, profitability, and market power, outperform macroeconomic factors in forecasting credit risk. Among the models tested, CatBoost was more accurate and explainable, as confirmed by SHAP-based explainability analysis. The implications of the research have practical applications for risk managers, regulators, and policymakers in terms of valuing the explanatory power of explainable AI tools to enhance financial oversight and decision-making in post-crisis UK 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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".