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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Citations
Cites
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
From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., & Lee, S.-I. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 · Cited by 10,551
He, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.239 · Cited by 10,359
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
Chen, T., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1603.02754 · Cited by 7,104
17. A Value for n-Person Games
Shapley, L. S. (1953) · Contributions to the Theory of Games (AM-28), Volume II · doi:10.1515/9781400881970-018 · Cited by 6,950
“Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier
Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/n16-3020 · Cited by 6,682
Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems
Koller, D., Schuurmans, D., Bengio, Y., & Bottou, L. (2008) · Cited by 4,461
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Ekstrøm, 2019, Sequential rank agreement methods for comparison of ranked lists, Biostatistics, 20, 582, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxy017 · DOI
- Thomas, 2017, vol. 6
- 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
Babatunde, S. O., Odejide, O. A., Edunjobi, T. E., & Ogundipe, D. O. (2024) · International Journal of Management & Entrepreneurship Research · doi:10.51594/ijmer.v6i3.964 · Cited by 288
Husain, G., Nasef, D., Jose, R., Mayer, J., Bekbolatova, M., Devine, T. J., & Toma, M. (2025) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a18010037 · Cited by 152
Ogundipe, D. O., Odejide, O. A., & Edunjobi, T. E. (2024) · Open Access Research Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.53022/oarjst.2024.10.2.0045 · Cited by 106
AI IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT: EXPLORING THEORETICAL MODELS FOR DECISION-MAKING AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Odejide, O. A., & Edunjobi, T. E. (2024) · Engineering Science & Technology Journal · doi:10.51594/estj.v5i3.959 · Cited by 97
Theoretical frameworks in AI for credit risk assessment: Towards banking efficiency and accuracy
Edunjobi, T. E., & Odejide, O. A. (2024) · International Journal of Scientific Research Updates · doi:10.53430/ijsru.2024.7.1.0030 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Chen, Y., Calabrese, R., & Martin-Barragan, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Chen, Yujia
- Venue
- European Journal of Operational Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-01
- Volume
- 312
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 357-372
- ISSN
- 0377-2217 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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
