The DOI matches its Crossref record; 136 of the 136 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Statistical and machine learning models in credit scoring: A systematic literature survey
Abstract
Abstract In practice, as a well-known statistical method, the logistic regression model is used to evaluate the credit-worthiness of borrowers due to its simplicity and transparency in predictions. However, in literature, sophisticated machine learning models can be found that can replace the logistic regression model. Despite the advances and applications of machine learning models in credit scoring, there are still two major issues: the incapability of some of the machine learning models to explain predictions; and the issue of imbalanced datasets. As such, there is a need for a thorough survey of recent literature in credit scoring. This article employs a systematic literature survey approach to systematically review statistical and machine learning models in credit scoring, to identify limitations in literature, to propose a guiding machine learning framework, and to point to emerging directions. This literature survey is based on 74 primary studies, such as journal and conference articles, that were published between 2010 and 2018. According to the meta-analysis of this literature survey, we found that in general, an ensemble of classifiers performs better than single classifiers. Although deep learning models have not been applied extensively in credit scoring literature, they show promising results.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. (2017) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3065386 · Cited by 112,155
Cortes, C., & Vapnik, V. (1995) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00994018 · Cited by 59,421
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
A decision-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting
Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1997) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1006/jcss.1997.1504 · Cited by 20,466
(2012) · Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6_5195 · Cited by 19,370
Neural networks for pattern recognition
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-5500 · Cited by 18,538
Cited by
Towards Human-Centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanations
Rong, Y., Leemann, T., Nguyen, T.-T., Fiedler, L., Qian, P., Unhelkar, V., Seidel, T., Kasneci, G., & Kasneci, E. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2023.3331846 · Cited by 278
Metadata
- Authors
- Dastile, X., Celik, T., & Potsane, M.
- Venue
- Applied Soft Computing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 91
- Pages
- 106263
- ISSN
- 1568-4946 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3013460382
- Cited by
- 404
- References
- 136
- FWCI
- 83.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Statistical and machine learning models in credit scoring: A systematic literature survey. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106263
- The paper
- Dastile, X., Celik, T., & Potsane, M. (2020). Statistical and machine learning models in credit scoring: A systematic literature survey. Applied Soft Computing. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106263
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.