Skip to main content
Log in

Model combination for credit risk assessment: A stacked generalization approach

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of credit risk assessment models is often considered within a classification context. Recent studies on the development of classification models have shown that a combination of methods often provides improved classification results compared to a single-method approach. Within this context, this study explores the combination of different classification methods in developing efficient models for credit risk assessment. A variety of methods are considered in the combination, including machine learning approaches and statistical techniques. The results illustrate that combined models can outperform individual models for credit risk analysis. The analysis also covers important issues such as the impact of using different parameters for the combined models, the effect of attribute selection, as well as the effects of combining strong or weak models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman, E.I., R. Avery, R. Eisenbeis, and J. Stinkey. (1981). Application of Classification Techniques in Business, Banking and Finance. Greenwich: JAI Press,.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baesens, B., T. Van Gestel, S. Viaene, M. Stepanova, J. Suyken, and J. Vanthienen. (2003). “Benchmarking State-of-the-Art Classification Algorithms for Credit Scoring.” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 627–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, J.M. and C.W.J. Granger. (1969). “The Combination of Forecasts,” Operational Research Quarterly, 20(4), 541–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, C., E. Keogh, and C.J. Merz. (1998), “UCI Repository of Machine Learning Data Bases,” University of California, Department of Information and Computer Science, Irvine, CA (http://www.ics.uci.edu/~mlearn/MLRepository.html).

  • Boyle M., J.N. Crook, R. Hamilton, and L.C. Thomas. (1992). “Methods for Credit Scoring Applied to Slow Payers.” In L.C. Thomas, J.N. Crook, and D.B. Edelman (eds.), Credit scoring and Credit Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 75–90.

  • Breiman, L. (1996). “Bagging Predictors,” Machine Learning, 24(2), 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiman, L., J. Friedman, R. Olshen, and C.J. Stone. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees. New York: Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronan, T.P., L.W. Glorfeld, and L.G. Perry. (1991). “Production System Development for Expert Systems Using a Recursive Partitioning Induction Approach: An Application to Mortgage, Commercial and Consumer Lending”, Decision Sciences, 22, 812–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietterich, T.G. (2000). “Ensemble Methods in Machine Learning.” In J. Kittler and F. Roli (eds.), First International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems (Lecture Notes in Computer Science). New York: Springer Verlag, pp. 1–15.

  • Doumpos, M. and C. Zopounidis. (2002). Multicriteria Decision Aid Classification Methods. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doumpos, M., K. Kosmidou, G. Baourakis, and C. Zopounidis. (2002). “Credit Risk Assessment Using a Multicriteria Hierarchical Discrimination Approach: A Comparative Analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 392–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duda, R.O., P.E. Hart, and D.G. Stork. (2001). Pattern Classification (2nd Edition)}. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunteman, G.H. (1989). Principal Components Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B. (1983). “Estimating the Error Rate of a Prediction Rule: Improvement of Cross-validation,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 78, 316–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freund, Y. (1995). “Boosting a Weak Learning Algorithm by Majority,” Information and Computation, 121(2), 256–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geman, S., E. Bienenstock, and R. Doursat. (1992). “Neural Networks and the Bias/Variance Dilemma,” Neural Computation, 4, 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillegeist S.A., E.K. Keating, D.P. Cram, and K.G. Lundstedt. (2004). “Assessing the Probability of Bankruptcy,” Review of Accounting Studies, 9(1), 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D.W. and S. Lemeshow. (2000). Applied Logistic Regression (2nd Edition). New York: John Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, Z., H. Chen, C.-J. Hsu, W.-H. Chen, and S. Wu. (2004). “Credit Rating Analysis with Support Vector Machines and Neural Networks: A Market Comparative Study.” Decision Support Systems, 37, 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klecka, W.R. (1980). Discriminant Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBlanc, M. and R. Tibshirani. (1996). “Combining Estimates in Regression and Classification,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 1641–1650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T-S., Ch.-Ch. Chiu, Ch-J. Lu, and I-F. Chen. (2002). “Credit Scoring Using the Hybrid Neural Discriminant Technique.” Expert System with Applications, 23, 245–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz, C.J. (1996). “Dynamical Selection of Learning Algorithms.” In D. Fisher and H. Lenz (eds.), Learning from Data: Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, New York: Springer Verlag.

  • Merz, C.J. (1999). “Using Correspondence Analysis to Combine Classifiers,” Machine Learning, 36, 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merz, C.J. and M.J. Pazzani. (1999). “A Principal Components Approach to Combining Regression Estimates,” Machine Learning 36, 9–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michie, D., D.J. Spiegelhalter, C.C. Taylor, and D.J. Speigelhalter. (1994). Machine Learning Neural and Statistical Classification. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak, Z. (1982). “Rough Sets,” International Journal of Information and Computer Sciences, 11, 341–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ripley, B.D. (1996). Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shin, K.-S., T.S. Lee, and H. Kim. (2005). “An Application of Support Vector Machines in Bankruptcy Prediction Model.” Expert Systems with Applications, 28, 127–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shumway, T.G. (2001). “Forecasting Bankruptcy More Accurately: A Simple Hazard Model,” Journal of Business 74(1), 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Specht, D.F. (1990). “Probabilistic Neural Networks,” Neural Networks, 3, 109–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan, V. and Y.H. Kim. (1987). “Credit Granting: A Comparative Analysis of Classification Procedures”, Journal of Finance, 42(3), 665–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, M. (1974). “Cross-validation Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B 36, 111–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodossiou, P. (1991). “Alternative Models for Assessing the Financial Condition of Business in Greece,” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 18(5), 697–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L.C. (2000). “A survey of credit and behavioural scoring: forecasting financial risk of lending to consumers.” International Journal of Forecasting, 16, 149–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ting, K.M., and I.H. Witten. (1999). “Issues in Stacked Generalization,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 271–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyree, E. and J. Long. (1995). “Assessing Financial Distress with Probabilistic Neural Networks.” In A.N. Refenes, Y. Abu-Mostafa and J. Moody and A. Weigend (eds.), Neural Networks in Financial Engineering. London: World Scientific, pp. 423–435.

  • Vapnik, V.N. (1998). Statistical Learning Theory. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilalta, R. and Y. Drissi. (2002). “A Perspective View and Survey of Meta-Learning”, Artificial Intelligence Review, 18, 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, D.H. (1992). “Stacked Generalization,” Neural Networks, 5, 241–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, D.H. (1996a). “The Lack of a Priori Distinctions Between Learning Algorithms,” Neural Computation, 8(7), 1341–1390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, D.H. (1996b). “The Existence of a Priori Distinctions Between Learning Algorithms,” Neural Computation, 8(7), 1391–1420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, D.H., and W.G. Macready. (1997). “No Free Lunch Theorems for Optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 1(1), 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z.R., M.B. Platt, and H.D. Platt. (1999). “Probabilistic Neural Networks in Bankruptcy Prediction.” Journal of Business Research, 44(2), 67–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L.A. (1965). “Fuzzy sets,” Information and Control, 8, 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zopounidis, C. and M. Doumpos. (2002). “Multicriteria Classification and Sorting Methods: A Literature Review,” European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constantin Zopounidis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C. Model combination for credit risk assessment: A stacked generalization approach. Ann Oper Res 151, 289–306 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-006-0120-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-006-0120-x

Keywords

Navigation