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.
Despite the popularity of Heckman's model, it is unclear whether this model can correct the selection bias or improve model performance. Some studies claim either higher model performance or different model parameters after using Heckman's model @cite_28 @cite_0 @cite_43 @cite_6 @cite_33 . These results, as explained by @cite_15 , depend upon whether the selection and default equations are correlated. On the other hand, @cite_47 @cite_11 @cite_45 state that the model parameters are inefficient, and the main criticism is that the Heckman's model fails to correct the selection bias when it is strong. This happens either when the correlation between the error terms in the selection and outcome equations is high or the data has high degree of censoring @cite_47 .
@cite_47 @cite_33 @cite_28 @cite_6 @cite_0 @cite_43 @cite_45 @cite_15 @cite_11
2147631685 2574867284 2020821583 2154776925
Meinshausen and Buhlmann [Ann. Statist. 34 (2006) 1436-1462] showed that, for neighborhood selection in Gaussian graphical models, under a neighborhood stability condition, the LASSO is consistent, even when the number of variables is of greater order than the sample size. Zhao and Yu [(2006) J. Machine Learning Research 7 2541-2567] formalized the neighborhood stability condition in the context of linear regression as a strong irrepresentable condition. That paper showed that under this condition, the LASSO selects exactly the set of nonzero regression coefficients, provided that these coefficients are bounded away from zero at a certain rate. In this paper, the regression coefficients outside an ideal model are assumed to be small, but not necessarily zero. Under a sparse Riesz condition on the correlation of design variables, we prove that the LASSO selects a model of the correct order of dimensionality, controls the bias of the selected model at a level determined by the contributions of small regression coefficients and threshold bias, and selects all coefficients of greater order than the bias of the selected model. Moreover, as a consequence of this rate consistency of the LASSO in model selection, it is proved that the sum of error squares for the mean response and the l α -loss for the regression coefficients converge at the best possible rates under the given conditions. An interesting aspect of our results is that the logarithm of the number of variables can be of the same order as the sample size for certain random dependent designs. In this paper, we propose three criteria for efficient sample selection in case of data stream regression problems within an online active learning context. The selection becomes important whenever the target values, which guide the update of the regressors as well as the implicit model structures, are costly or time-consuming to measure and also in case when very fast models updates are required to cope with stream mining real-time demands. Reducing the selected samples as much as possible while keeping the predictive accuracy of the models on a high level is, thus, a central challenge. This should be ideally achieved in unsupervised and single-pass manner. Our selection criteria rely on three aspects: 1) the extrapolation degree combined with the model's nonlinearity degree , which is measured in terms of a new specific homogeneity criterion among adjacent local approximators; 2) the uncertainty in model outputs, which can be measured in terms of confidence intervals using so-called adaptive local error bars — we integrate a weighted localization of an incremental noise level estimator and propose formulas for online merging of local error bars; 3) the uncertainty in model parameters, which is estimated by the so-called A-optimality criterion, which relies on the Fisher information matrix. The selection criteria are developed in combination with evolving generalized Takagi–Sugeno (TS) fuzzy models (containing rules in arbitrarily rotated position), as it could be shown in previous publications that these outperform conventional evolving TS models (containing axis-parallel rules). The results based on three high-dimensional real-world streaming problems show that a model update based on only 10 –20 selected samples can still achieve similar accumulated model errors over time to the case when performing a full model update on all samples. This can be achieved with a negligible sensitivity on the size of the active learning latency buffer. Random sampling with the same percentages of samples selected, however, achieved much higher error rates. Hence, the intelligence in our sample selection concept leads to an economic balance between model accuracy and measurement as well computational costs for model updates. 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. Model selection strategies for machine learning algorithms typically involve the numerical optimisation of an appropriate model selection criterion, often based on an estimator of generalisation performance, such as k-fold cross-validation. The error of such an estimator can be broken down into bias and variance components. While unbiasedness is often cited as a beneficial quality of a model selection criterion, we demonstrate that a low variance is at least as important, as a non-negligible variance introduces the potential for over-fitting in model selection as well as in training the model. While this observation is in hindsight perhaps rather obvious, the degradation in performance due to over-fitting the model selection criterion can be surprisingly large, an observation that appears to have received little attention in the machine learning literature to date. In this paper, we show that the effects of this form of over-fitting are often of comparable magnitude to differences in performance between learning algorithms, and thus cannot be ignored in empirical evaluation. Furthermore, we show that some common performance evaluation practices are susceptible to a form of selection bias as a result of this form of over-fitting and hence are unreliable. We discuss methods to avoid over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation, which we hope will be incorporated into best practice. While this study concentrates on cross-validation based model selection, the findings are quite general and apply to any model selection practice involving the optimisation of a model selection criterion evaluated over a finite sample of data, including maximisation of the Bayesian evidence and optimisation of performance bounds.