IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/7958697.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Shapley values as an interpretability technique in credit scoring

Author

Listed:
  • Hendrik Andries du Toit
  • Willem Daniël Schutte
  • Helgard Raubenheimer

Abstract

The use of machine learning algorithms in credit scoring can be enhanced by an improved understanding of the reasoning behind model decisions. Although machine learning algorithms are widely regarded as highly accurate, their use in settings that require an explanation of model decisions has been limited due to a lack of transparency. This is particularly the case in the banking sector, where the model risk frameworks of banks frequently require a significant level of model interpretability. In this paper, the Shapley value is evaluated as a machine learning interpretability technique in credit scoring. The Shapley value is a model-agnostic machine learning interpretability technique that quantifies the contribution of each feature in the prediction of a specific observation. The effectiveness of this technique is tested on various simulated data sets with covariates from different underlying distributions that are linearly and nonlinearly related to the outcome. Traditional models (eg, logistic and linear regression) and machine learning algorithms are trained on the data and the Shapley values are generated. Our results show that Shapley values are related to weights of evidence (a well-known measure in the scorecard literature) and can be used to explain the direction of relationships between explanatory variables and the outcome.

Suggested Citation

Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:7958697
as

Download full text from publisher

File URL: https://www.risk.net/system/files/digital_asset/2024-01/jrmv_du_Toit_web_final.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:journ5:7958697. 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.