Credit Card Default Prediction: An Empirical Analysis on Predictive Performance Using Statistical and Machine Learning Methods
Open accessAbstract
This article compares the predictive capabilities of six models, namely, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM), XGBoost, random forest (RF), and deep neural network (DNN), to predict the default behavior of credit card holders in Taiwan using data from the UCI machine learning database. The Python programming language was used for data analysis. Statistical methods were compared with machine learning algorithms using the confusion matrix measured in metric terms of prediction accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, G-mean, F1 score, ROC, and AUC. The dataset contained 30,000 credit card users’ information, with 6636 default observations and 23,364 nondefault cases. The study results found that modern machine learning methods outperformed traditional statistical methods in terms of predictive performance measured by the F1 score, G-mean, and AUC. Traditional methods like logistic regression were marginally better than linear discriminant analysis and support vector machines in terms of the predictive performance measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. In the modern machine learning methods, deep neural network was better in the predictive performance metrics when compared with XGBoost and random forest methods.
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
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 56 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Bhandary, R., & Ghosh, B. K.
- Affiliations
- Manipal Academy of Higher Education (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Bhandary, Rakshith
- Venue
- Journal of Risk and Financial Management
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-01-09
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23
- ISSN
- 1911-8066 (ISSN-L)
- 1911-8074
- OpenAlex
- W4406230441
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 13
- FWCI
- 69.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of risk and financial management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer churn and segmentation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
- Keywords
- credit card default prediction, default behavior, credit risk, model comparison, linear discriminant analysis, logistic regression, support vector machine, XGBoost, random forest, deep neural network, predictive performance
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