IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/2164412.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The effect of imperfect data on default prediction validation tests

Author

Listed:
  • Heather Russell, Douglas Dwyer and Qing Kang Tang

Abstract

ABSTRACT Analysts often find themselves working with less than perfect development and/or validation samples, and data issues typically affect the interpretation of default prediction validation tests. Discriminatory power and calibration of default probabilities are two key aspects of validating default probability models. This paper considers how data issues affect three important power tests: the accuracy ratio, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the conditional information entropy ratio. The effect of data issues upon the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, a default probability calibration test, is also considered. A simulation approach is employed that allows the impact of data issues on model performance, when the exact nature of the data issue is known, to be assessed. We obtain several results from the tests of discriminatory power. For example, we find that random missing defaults have little impact on model power, while false defaults have a large impact on power. As with other common level calibration test statistics, the Hosmer-Lemeshow test statistic simply indicates to what degree the level calibration passes or fails. We find that the presence of any data issue tends to cause this test to fail, and, thus, we introduce additional statistics to describe how realized default probabilities differ from those expected. In particular, we introduce statistics to compare overall default probability level with the realized default rate, and to compare the sensitivity of the default rate to changes in the predicted default probability.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:2164412
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/import/protected/digital_assets/5121/jrmv_russell_web.pdf
Download Restriction: no
---><---

More about this item

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:2164412. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk-model-validation .

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.