STRIKE: Additive Feature-Group-Aware Stacking Framework for Credit Default Prediction

Predictive models play a pivotal role in credit risk management, guiding critical decisions through accurate estimation of default probabilities and losses. Extensive research has introduced new modeling techniques, complemented by large-scale benchmarking studies consolidating the state-of-the-art. Today, quasi-standards such as gradient-boosting models paired with SHAP explainers have emerged, yet continuous improvement of risk models remains a top priority. Concurrently, rapid advancements in AI, most notably large language models, have disrupted predictive modeling paradigms. Foundation models, pretrained on extensive datasets from diverse domains, have demonstrated remarkable performance by leveraging prior knowledge. While prevalent in natural language processing and computer vision, foundation models for tabular data have only recently emerged. We conjecture that pretraining on out-of-domain data is particularly beneficial in small-data settings, such as SME lending or specialized corporate portfolios, and may help address longstanding challenges including low default portfolios and class imbalance. This paper benchmarks recently proposed tabular foundation models against a broad set of competitors, including established and advanced machine learning techniques, across two core tasks: PD and LGD modeling. Our evaluation encompasses various datasets, performance indicators, and experimental conditions. We find that tabular foundation models generally perform best across datasets and tasks. Moreover, they offer significant improvement in predictive performance as dataset size shrinks. These results are remarkable given that the models are tested out-of-the-box, without hyperparameter tuning, ensuring ease of use and mitigating computational costs.

Credit default prediction is a tabular learning problem with severe class imbalance, heterogeneous features, and tight latency budgets. Tabular Foundation Models (TFMs) approach this problem through in-context learning, which makes their predictions sensitive to how the context window is built. We benchmark four classical models and five TFMs on the Home Credit and Lending Club datasets, varying the context-construction strategy (seven options) and the context size (1K to 50K). On both datasets, the choice of context strategy explains more variance in AUC-ROC than the choice of TFM family: balanced and hybrid sampling add 3 to 4 AUC points over uniform sampling, and the gap exceeds the spread between TFMs. With a balanced context of 5K to 10K examples, the strongest TFMs reach the AUC of classical baselines trained on the full data, while also recovering meaningful default-class recall that default-threshold GBDTs do not. We frame this as evidence that context construction, rather than architecture choice, is the primary deployment lever for TFMs in imbalanced credit-risk settings.

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. A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale. We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds. The predictive component is a multi-scale stacking ensemble fusing four differently regularised gradient-boosting learners with a residual network through a neural meta-learner trained on out-of-fold predictions. On a public 32,581-application credit dataset it reaches test ROC-AUC 0.9539 (95% CI [0.9462, 0.9616]) and PR-AUC 0.9137, beating the best single model by Delta-AUC = 0.0143 (p = 0.016 under a conservative independence assumption). Our central finding is asymmetric. The ranking gain is real but operationally small: at the F1-optimal threshold the ensemble avoids only six additional missed defaults out of 1,422 against a tuned random forest, cutting cost-weighted loss by under 2%. The narrative layer fails in a way prompt engineering alone does not fix. In an audited case the model named three factors as risk-increasing that the supplied attributions scored as risk-reducing, omitted the dominant driver, and introduced a feature never given to it. We trace this to properties we measure rather than assume: SHAP and LIME agree on which features matter (overlap@10 = 0.80) but not on their order (tau = 0.43, p = 0.18), and the attribution sign for the model's most sensitive input is near a coin flip across applicants (modal-sign share 0.53). Calibration (ECS = 0.117) and perturbation stability (DPD = 0.078) both fall short of our own thresholds. Constrained prompting is necessary but not sufficient: grounding must be verified after generation, not assumed.