Cited by 306Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Financial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionImbalanced Data Classification Techniques

SHAP and LIME: An Evaluation of Discriminative Power in Credit Risk

Open access
Gramegna, Alex, Giudici, Paolo·2021·Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

In credit risk estimation, the most important element is obtaining a probability of default as close as possible to the effective risk. This effort quickly prompted new, powerful algorithms that reach a far higher accuracy, but at the cost of losing intelligibility, such as Gradient Boosting or ensemble methods. These models are usually referred to as “black-boxes”, implying that you know the inputs and the output, but there is little way to understand what is going on under the hood. As a response to that, we have seen several different Explainable AI models flourish in recent years, with the aim of letting the user see why the black-box gave a certain output. In this context, we evaluate two very popular eXplainable AI (XAI) models in their ability to discriminate observations into groups, through the application of both unsupervised and predictive modeling to the weights these XAI models assign to features locally. The evaluation is carried out on real Small and Medium Enterprises data, obtained from official italian repositories, and may form the basis for the employment of such XAI models for post-processing features extraction.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/frai.2021.752558

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 19 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gramegna, A., & Giudici, P.
Affiliations
University of Pavia (IT)
Corresponding author
Gramegna, Alex
Venue
Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence
Published
2021-09-17
Volume
4
Pages
752558-752558
ISSN
2624-8212 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3200880768
Cited by
306
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 57 · 2025: 87 · 2024: 89 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 1
FWCI
14.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Keywords
SHAP, lime, explainable AI, credit risk, probability of default, model interpretability, black-box models, feature attribution, small and medium-sized enterprises, gradient boosting, ensemble methods

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