Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) as explanation layers for credit risk models, aiming to bridge the communication gap between complex model outputs and stakeholders. By evaluating three pipelines鈥攕tandard tabular (XGBoost + SHAP), pure network-based (GNN + GNNExplainer), and a bimodal approach鈥攗sing Freddie Mac loan-level data, the authors find that the quality of explanations is more influenced by evidence representation than by the model type. Key results indicate that while LLM-generated narratives effectively identify influential factors, they struggle with accurately conveying the direction of influence, which is critical for decision-making in credit approvals and denials.
Evidence representation, not model choice, is the key to improving explanation quality in credit risk decision-making.
Credit decisioning is a high-stakes task in which model outputs must be accurate and explainable to support compliant decisions. Although modern credit risk models such as eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) improve predictive performance, their explanations are often too technical for stakeholders creating communication gaps that can shape approvals, denials, and fairness judgments. We examine whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as explanation layers that translate post-hoc explanation artefacts into stakeholder-appropriate risk narratives. Using Freddie Mac single-family loan-level data, we develop three pipelines: standard tabular (XGBoost + SHAP), and two with alternative data, a pure network-based (GNN + GNNExplainer), and a bimodal one (combining tabular and network data). We generate narratives with three LLM configurations: a small fine-tuned LLM (Gemma 3 4B), a large fine-tuned LLM (DeepSeek R1 70B), and a zero-shot commercial LLM (Gemini 2.5). Explanation quality is evaluated through automated checks across all pipelines and a human study of bimodal explanations comparing credit risk professionals and non-professionals on eight decision-relevant dimensions. We have three main findings. First, the pipeline accounts for higher variance in evidence-grounding scores than the language model, meaning that the binding constraint on explanation quality is the evidence representation, not the model used. Second, the explanation narratives reliably name the influential factors but are less reliable when stating the direction of influence, which may be consequential for adverse-action communication. Finally, professionals apply stricter evidentiary standards than non-professionals. We discuss implications for the governance of risk models, including deployment considerations and the value of domain-aligned LLMs in regulated credit settings.
