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.
Banks decide whether to grant credit to new applications as well as how to deal with existing customers, e.g. deciding whether credit limits should be increased and determining which marketing campaign is most appropriate. The tools that help banks with the first problem are called credit scoring models, while behavioral scoring models are used to handle exiting customers @cite_17 . Both type of models estimate the ability that a borrower will be unable to meet its debt obligations, which is referred to as default probability. This research focuses on reject inference to improve the classification accuracy of credit scoring models by utilizing the rejected applications. In Table ), we present an updated research overview on reject inference in credit scoring extending the one presented in @cite_12 .
@cite_12 @cite_17
2298695453 2043324736 2085237221 1972671391
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. One of the aims of credit scoring models is to predict the probability of repayment of any applicant and yet such models are usually parameterised using a sample of accepted applicants only. This may lead to biased estimates of the parameters. In this paper we examine two issues. First, we compare the classification accuracy of a model based only on accepted applicants, relative to one based on a sample of all applicants. We find only a minimal difference, given the cutoff scores for the old model used by the data supplier. Using a simulated model we examine the predictive performance of models estimated from bands of applicants, ranked by predicted creditworthiness. We find that the lower the risk band of the training sample, the less accurate the predictions for all applicants. We also find that the lower the risk band of the training sample, the greater the overestimate of the true performance of the model, when tested on a sample of applicants within the same risk band — as a financial institution would do. The overestimation may be very large. Second, we examine the predictive accuracy of a bivariate probit model with selection (BVP). This parameterises the accept–reject model allowing for (unknown) omitted variables to be correlated with those of the original good–bad model. The BVP model may improve accuracy if the loan officer has overridden a scoring rule. We find that a small improvement when using the BVP model is sometimes possible. We generalize an empirical likelihood approach to deal with missing data to a model of consumer credit scoring. An application to recent consumer credit data shows that our procedure yields parameter estimates which are significantly different (both statistically and economically) from the case where customers who were refused credit are ignored. This has obvious implications for commercial banks as it shows that refused customers should not be ignored when developing scorecards for the retail business. We also show that forecasts of defaults derived from the method proposed in this paper improve upon the standard ones when refused customers do not enter the estimation data set. If a credit scoring model is built using only applicants who have been previously accepted for credit such a non-random sample selection may produce bias in the estimated model parameters and accordingly the model's predictions of repayment performance may not be optimal. Previous empirical research suggests that omission of rejected applicants has a detrimental impact on model estimation and prediction. This paper explores the extent to which, given the previous cutoff score applied to decide on accepted applicants, the number of included variables influences the efficacy of a commonly used reject inference technique, reweighting. The analysis benefits from the availability of a rare sample, where virtually no applicant was denied credit. The general indication is that the efficacy of reject inference is little influenced by either model leanness or interaction between model leanness and the rejection rate that determined the sample. However, there remains some hint that very lean models may benefit from reject inference where modelling is conducted on data characterized by a very high rate of applicant rejection.