arXiv Machine Learning By Gregorius Reynaldi Pratama, Kuo-Kun Tseng

Accurate Ensembles, Fragile Narratives: Multi-Scale Stacking and a Fidelity Audit of LLM-Generated Explanations for Credit Risk

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2608. 08126v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters, in tension with supervisory expectations that adverse decisions be explainable.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 21

Credit Without Ground Truth: Auditing Step-Level Credit Assignment in LLM Agents Against Executed Replay

arXiv:2608. 19760v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Audited against causal ground truth from executed replay in a single-agent tool environment (ALFWorld), none of the step-level credit signals used to train LLM agents -- LLM-judge scores, outcome-conditioned logprob ratios, or the policy's own confidence -- identifies which steps causally matter better than chance.

By Haiyue Zhang
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 25

MemGuard-Alpha: Limits of Membership Inference for Detecting and Filtering Memorization-Contaminated Signals in LLM-Based Financial Forecasting

MemGuard-Alpha evaluates whether membership inference attacks (MIA) can detect memorization in large language models (LLMs) used for financial alpha signals. The study combines five MIA methods with a temporal proximity feature and a cross-model disagreement metric, then audits them across seven LLMs, 50 S&P 100 stocks, and 299,600 prompt-model pairs. Findings show that temporal proximity alone perfectly predicts in-sample status, MIA discriminative power largely stems from model scale differences, and filtering based on contamination scores does not improve risk-adjusted performance once transaction costs are considered.

By Anisha Roy, Dip Roy
arXiv AI
Aug 19

Communicating Credit Risk with Large Language Models: Evaluation of Explanations from Standard and Alternative Data-Based Models

The study investigates whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can translate technical explanations from credit risk models into stakeholder-friendly narratives. Using Freddie Mac loan data, the authors compare standard tabular models (XGBoost + SHAP) with alternative data pipelines (GNN + GNNExplainer and a bimodal mix) and generate explanations with three LLM configurations: a small fine‑tuned Gemma 3 4B, a large fine‑tuned DeepSeek R1 70B, and a zero‑shot Gemini 2.5. Findings show that the quality of explanations is more dependent on the evidence representation than on the LLM, that narratives reliably identify influential factors but are less consistent about the direction of influence, and that credit professionals demand higher evidentiary standards than non‑professionals.

By Sahab Zandi, Noah Kostesku, Christophe Mues, Mar\'ia \'Oskarsd\'ottir, Cristi\'an Bravo