CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 214Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Imbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Interpretable machine learning for imbalanced credit scoring datasets

Open access
Chen, Yujia, Calabrese, Raffaella, Martin-Barragan, Belen·2024·European Journal of Operational Research
DOI 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.06.036
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The class imbalance problem is common in the credit scoring domain, as the number of defaulters is usually much less than the number of non-defaulters. To date, research on investigating the class imbalance problem has mainly focused on indicating and reducing the adverse effect of the class imbalance on the predictive accuracy of machine learning techniques, while the impact of that on machine learning interpretability has never been studied in the literature. This paper fills this gap by analysing how the stability of Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations (LIME) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), two popular interpretation methods, are affected by class imbalance. Our experiments use 2016-2020 UK residential mortgage data collected from European Datawarehouse. We evaluate the stability of LIME and SHAP on datasets of progressively increased class imbalance. The results show that interpretations generated from LIME and SHAP are less stable as the class imbalance increases, which indicates that the class imbalance does have an adverse effect on machine learning interpretability. To check the robustness of our outcomes, we also analyse two open-source credit scoring datasets and we obtain similar results.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.06.036

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 71 references

3 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Ekstrøm, 2019, Sequential rank agreement methods for comparison of ranked lists, Biostatistics, 20, 582, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxy017 · DOI
  2. Thomas, 2017, vol. 6
  3. Wachter, 2017, Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR, SSRN Electronic Journal, 10.2139/ssrn.3063289 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–214 of 214

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Chen, Y., Calabrese, R., & Martin-Barragan, B.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Chen, Yujia
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Operational Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
312
Issue
1
Pages
357-372
ISSN
0377-2217 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ejor.2023.06.036
OpenAlex
W4381997116
Cited by
190
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 72 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 49
FWCI
16.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • European Journal of Operational Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/W010259/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Keywords
class imbalance, credit scoring, interpretability, lime, SHAP, explanation stability, mortgage default, residential mortgages, default prediction

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