Credit scoring models based on accepted applications may be biased and their consequences can have a statistical and economic impact. Reject inference is the process of attempting to infer the creditworthiness status of the rejected applications. In this research, we use deep generative models to develop two new semi-supervised Bayesian models for reject inference in credit scoring, in which we model the data generating process to be dependent on a Gaussian mixture. The goal is to improve the classification accuracy in credit scoring models by adding reject applications. Our proposed models infer the unknown creditworthiness of the rejected applications by exact enumeration of the two possible outcomes of the loan (default or non-default). The efficient stochastic gradient optimization technique used in deep generative models makes our models suitable for large data sets. Finally, the experiments in this research show that our proposed models perform better than classical and alternative machine learning models for reject inference in credit scoring.
A comparison of different reject inference methods, e.g. augmentation, parceling, fuzzy parceling and the Heckman's model, is presented in @cite_26 . The parceling and fuzzy parceling methods are very similar. They first fit a logistic regression model using the accepted applications. Then they use this model to estimate the default probability for all rejected applications. The difference is that the parceling method chooses a threshold on the default probability to assign the unknown outcome @math to the rejected applications. On the other hand, the fuzzy parceling method assumes that each reject application has both outcomes @math and @math , with weights given by the fitted model using only the accepted applications. Finally, the parcelling (fuzzy parceling) method fits a new (weighted) logistic regression using both accepted and rejected applications. The results in @cite_26 do not show higher model performance using the reject inference methods. However, the parameter estimates are different when applying the augmentation and parceling approaches. Hence, reject inference has a statistical and economic impact on the final model in this case.
@cite_26
2298695453 2005213340 2949399223 2020821583
Credit scoring models are commonly developed using only accepted Known Good Bad (G B) applications, called KGB model, because we only know the performance of those accepted in the past. Obviously, the KGB model is not indicative of the entire through-the-door population, and reject inference precisely attempts to address the bias by assigning an inferred G B status to rejected applications. In this paper, we discuss the pros and cons of various reject inference techniques, and pitfalls to avoid when using them. We consider a real dataset of a major French consumer finance bank to assess the effectiveness of the practice of using reject inference. To do that, we rely on the logistic regression framework to model probabilities to become good bad, and then validate the model performance with and without sample selection bias correction. Our main results can be summarized as follows. First, we show that the best reject inference technique is not necessarily the most complicated one: reweighting and parceling provide more accurate and relevant results than fuzzy augmentation and Heckmans two-stage correction. Second, disregarding rejected applications significantly impacts the forecast accuracy of the scorecard. Third, as the sum of standard errors dramatically reduces when the sample size increases, reject inference turns out to produce an improved representation of the population. Finally, reject inference appears to be an effective way to reduce overfitting in model selection. Reject inference is the process of estimating the risk of defaulting for loan applicants that are rejected under the current acceptance policy. We propose a new reject inference method based on mixture modeling, that allows the meaningful inclusion of the rejects in the estimation process. We describe how such a model can be estimated using the EM algorithm. An experimental study shows that inclusion of the rejects can lead to a substantial improvement of the resulting classification rule. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. We propose robust methods for inference on the effect of a treatment variable on a scalar outcome in the presence of very many controls. Our setting is a partially linear model with possibly non-Gaussian and heteroscedastic disturbances. Our analysis allows the number of controls to be much larger than the sample size. To make informative inference feasible, we require the model to be approximately sparse; that is, we require that the effect of confounding factors can be controlled for up to a small approximation error by conditioning on a relatively small number of controls whose identities are unknown. The latter condition makes it possible to estimate the treatment effect by selecting approximately the right set of controls. We develop a novel estimation and uniformly valid inference method for the treatment effect in this setting, called the "post-double-selection" method. Our results apply to Lasso-type methods used for covariate selection as well as to any other model selection method that is able to find a sparse model with good approximation properties. The main attractive feature of our method is that it allows for imperfect selection of the controls and provides confidence intervals that are valid uniformly across a large class of models. In contrast, standard post-model selection estimators fail to provide uniform inference even in simple cases with a small, fixed number of controls. Thus our method resolves the problem of uniform inference after model selection for a large, interesting class of models. We illustrate the use of the developed methods with numerical simulations and an application to the effect of abortion on crime rates. Many researchers see the need for reject inference in credit scoring models to come from a sample selection problem whereby a missing variable results in omitted variable bias. Alternatively, practitioners often see the problem as one of missing data where the relationship in the new model is biased because the behaviour of the omitted cases differs from that of those who make up the sample for a new model. To attempt to correct for this, differential weights are applied to the new cases. The aim of this paper is to see if the use of both a Heckman style sample selection model and the use of sampling weights, together, will improve predictive performance compared with either technique used alone. This paper will use a sample of applicants in which virtually every applicant was accepted. This allows us to compare the actual performance of each model with the performance of models which are based only on accepted cases.