Optimizing the Collection Process in Credit Risk Management: A Comparison of Machine Learning Techniques for Predicting Payment Probability at Different Stages of Arrears
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In credit risk, scoring models based on logistic regression have been developed to optimize the default risk assessment. However, these models require complex feature engineering, and their accuracy worsens as the arrears progresses. This study proposes the use of machine learning techniques (XGBoost and artificial neural networks) to generate scores in different arrears segments (No Arrears Segment, 1–30 Days of Arrears Segment, 31–90 Days of Arrears Segment, and All Segments). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) metric is used to assess the efficiency and predictive power of the models. To ensure the accuracy and reliability of the models, a five-step methodology is employed. It starts with the formulation of the problem, followed by the selection of a data sample and definition of the target variable, then a descriptive analysis of the data is performed to facilitate the data cleaning. Subsequently, the models are trained and tested, and finally, the results are analyzed, and the models obtained are interpreted. The results show that both XGBoost and artificial neural network models outperform logistic regression in most of the arrears segments. In the No Arrears Segment, the XGBoost model is the best with KS = 63.36%. In the 1–30 Segment, XGBoost is also the best with KS = 51.38%. In the 31–90 Segment, the artificial neural network model is the best with KS = 38.77%. Finally, with all segments of arrears, the XGBoost model is again the best with KS = 74.05%.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".