4.8 Article

Interpretable high-stakes decision support system for credit default forecasting

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122825

关键词

High-stakes decision forecasting; Credit default forecasting; Interpretable machine learning; Imbalanced datasets; Resampling methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study proposes an interpretable high-stakes decision support system called CDFS for credit default forecasting. The feature selection and data balancing modules significantly improve the prediction performance, providing satisfactory explanations for prediction results to decision-makers.
Methods for forecasting credit default have long been research focus for financial institutions. In this study, we propose an interpretable high-stakes decision support system for credit default forecasting called CDFS. Because of the high-stake nature of credit default prediction, the proposed CDFS adheres to the principle of people in the loop. The proposed CDFS comprises six modules: data processing, feature selection, data balancing, forecasting, evaluation, and interpretation. A feature selection method (permutation importance method), nine resampling methods, and six high-performance forecasting methods were employed in the proposed CDFS. The China Taiwan credit card default dataset and South Germany credit dataset were used to test the interpretability and predictive performance of the proposed CDFS. Experiments showed that the feature selection and data balancing modules of the CDFS effectively improve the prediction performance. A comparison with traditional logistic regression models demonstrated that the CDFS can provide decision-makers with satisfactory explanations for prediction results. In summary, the CDFS proposed in this study exhibited excellent predictive performance and satisfactory interpretability. This study contributes to improving the accuracy of credit default forecasting and reducing credit risk in financial institutions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据