Explainable Machine Learning Models for Credit Rating in Colombian Solidarity Sector Entities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper proposes a methodology for implementing a custom-developed explainability model for credit rating using behavioral data registered during the lifecycle of the borrowing that can replicate the score given by the regulatory model for the solidarity economy in Colombia. The methodology integrates continuous behavioral and financial variables from over 17,000 real credit histories into predictive models based on ridge regression, decision trees, random forests, XGBoost, and LightGBM. The models were trained and evaluated using cross-validation and RMSE metrics. LightGBM emerged as the most accurate model, effectively capturing nonlinear credit behavior patterns. To ensure interpretability, SHAP was used to identify the contribution of each feature to the model predictions. The presented model using LightGBM predicted the credit risk assessment in accordance with the regulatory model used by the Colombian Superintendence of the Solidarity Economy, with a root-mean-square error of 0.272 and an R2 score of 0.99. We propose an alternative framework using explainable machine learning models aligned with the internal ratings-based approach under Basel II. Our model integrates variables collected throughout the borrowing lifecycle, offering a more comprehensive perspective than the regulatory model. While the regulatory framework adjusts itself generically to national regulations, our approach explicitly accounts for borrower-specific dynamics.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".