IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ5/7962815.html

Interpretable machine learning for default risk prediction in stress testing

Author

Listed:
  • Junqi Zhao
  • Nan Zhou
  • Zailong Wan

Abstract

Stress testing is essential for testing the resilience of banks’ portfolios against possible future economic conditions. A key component in stress testing is predicting the probability of default within the expected loss framework for credit risk modeling. Traditional probability of default models based on logistic regression (LR) struggle to capture complex, nonlinear relationships and require great efforts in manual feature engineering to satisfy model assumptions and achieve the best model fit. In model validation a benchmark model can serve as a valuable tool to effectively challenge the limitations of an existing model. This study develops a benchmark model – an inherently interpretable machine learning model using the explainable boosting machine (EBM) within a discrete-time survival analysis setting – to predict the forward-looking probability of default of a real-world credit card portfolio. The EBM-based model is compared against a classic LR model, and results show that it achieves comparable predictive accuracy to the LR model and enhanced macrosensitivity with a sample one-fifth of the size of the LR model and without the lengthy manual feature engineering of the LR model. Moreover, the EBM’s learned shape functions make the model inherently interpretable. The study contributes a valuable option for financial institutions seeking to either adopt machine-learning-based methods in order to optimize stress testing model development or enhance benchmarking practices in risk model validation while maintaining compliance with regulatory expectations.

Suggested Citation

  • Junqi Zhao & Nan Zhou & Zailong Wan, . "Interpretable machine learning for default risk prediction in stress testing," Journal of Risk Model Validation, Journal of Risk Model Validation.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ5:7962815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.risk.net/node/7962815
    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:journ5:7962815. 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.