BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Linwei Hu

Linwei Hu contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Machine Learningq-fin.GN

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 19 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
5works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

5 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Explaining Adverse Actions in Credit Decisions Using Shapley Decomposition

When a financial institution declines an application for credit, an adverse action (AA) is said to occur. The applicant is then entitled to an explanation for the negative decision. This paper focuses on credit decisions based on a predictive model for probability of default and proposes a methodology for AA explanation. The problem involves identifying the important predictors responsible for the negative decision and is straightforward when the underlying model is additive. However, it becomes non-trivial even for linear models with interactions. We consider models with low-order interactions and develop a simple and intuitive approach based on first principles. We then show how the methodology generalizes to the well-known Shapely decomposition and the recently proposed concept of Baseline Shapley (B-Shap). Unlike other Shapley techniques in the literature for local interpretability of machine learning results, B-Shap is computationally tractable since it involves just function evaluations. An illustrative case study is used to demonstrate the usefulness of the method. The paper also discusses situations with highly correlated predictors and desirable properties of fitted models in the credit-lending context, such as monotonicity and continuity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Performance and Interpretability Comparisons of Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms: An Empirical Study

This paper compares the performances of three supervised machine learning algorithms in terms of predictive ability and model interpretation on structured or tabular data. The algorithms considered were scikit-learn implementations of extreme gradient boosting machines (XGB) and random forests (RFs), and feedforward neural networks (FFNNs) from TensorFlow. The paper is organized in a findings-based manner, with each section providing general conclusions supported by empirical results from simulation studies that cover a wide range of model complexity and correlation structures among predictors. We considered both continuous and binary responses of different sample sizes. Overall, XGB and FFNNs were competitive, with FFNNs showing better performance in smooth models and tree-based boosting algorithms performing better in non-smooth models. This conclusion held generally for predictive performance, identification of important variables, and determining correct input-output relationships as measured by partial dependence plots (PDPs). FFNNs generally had less over-fitting, as measured by the difference in performance between training and testing datasets. However, the difference with XGB was often small. RFs did not perform well in general, confirming the findings in the literature. All models exhibited different degrees of bias seen in PDPs, but the bias was especially problematic for RFs. The extent of the biases varied with correlation among predictors, response type, and data set sample size. In general, tree-based models tended to over-regularize the fitted model in the tails of predictor distributions. Finally, as to be expected, performances were better for continuous responses compared to binary data and with larger samples.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Shapley Computations Using Surrogate Model-Based Trees

Shapley-related techniques have gained attention as both global and local interpretation tools because of their desirable properties. However, their computation using conditional expectations is computationally expensive. Approximation methods suggested in the literature have limitations. This paper proposes the use of a surrogate model-based tree to compute Shapley and SHAP values based on conditional expectation. Simulation studies show that the proposed algorithm provides improvements in accuracy, unifies global Shapley and SHAP interpretation, and the thresholding method provides a way to trade-off running time and accuracy.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Supervised Machine Learning Techniques: An Overview with Applications to Banking

This article provides an overview of Supervised Machine Learning (SML) with a focus on applications to banking. The SML techniques covered include Bagging (Random Forest or RF), Boosting (Gradient Boosting Machine or GBM) and Neural Networks (NNs). We begin with an introduction to ML tasks and techniques. This is followed by a description of: i) tree-based ensemble algorithms including Bagging with RF and Boosting with GBMs, ii) Feedforward NNs, iii) a discussion of hyper-parameter optimization techniques, and iv) machine learning interpretability. The paper concludes with a comparison of the features of different ML algorithms. Examples taken from credit risk modeling in banking are used throughout the paper to illustrate the techniques and interpret the results of the algorithms.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Surrogate Locally-Interpretable Models with Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms

Supervised Machine Learning (SML) algorithms, such as Gradient Boosting, Random Forest, and Neural Networks, have become popular in recent years due to their superior predictive performance over traditional statistical methods. However, their complexity makes the results hard to interpret without additional tools. There has been a lot of recent work in developing global and local diagnostics for interpreting SML models. In this paper, we propose a locally-interpretable model that takes the fitted ML response surface, partitions the predictor space using model-based regression trees, and fits interpretable main-effects models at each of the nodes. We adapt the algorithm to be efficient in dealing with high-dimensional predictors. While the main focus is on interpretability, the resulting surrogate model also has reasonably good predictive performance.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access