Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches

Descripción del Articulo

In the field of credit risk management, credit scoring is a fundamental statistical tool that allows financial institutions to improve their decisions on whether to approve or reject loans, adjusting their policies to the risk profile of each applicant. In response to this context, the overall objec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor: Fernández Vásquez, Richard Fernando
Formato: artículo
Fecha de Publicación:2026
Institución:Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
Repositorio:Revistas - Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
Lenguaje:español
inglés
OAI Identifier:oai:oai:revistas.uni.edu.pe:article/2738
Enlace del recurso:https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738
Nivel de acceso:acceso abierto
Materia:incumplimiento de crédito
credit scoring
regresión logit
regresión probit
enfoque clásico
enfoque bayesiano
MCMC
credit default
logit regression
probit regression
classical approach
bayesian approach
id REVUNI_6161080171d8eac99ec3a7fca8566c92
oai_identifier_str oai:oai:revistas.uni.edu.pe:article/2738
network_acronym_str REVUNI
network_name_str Revistas - Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
repository_id_str
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
Gestión del riesgo crediticio: comparación de modelos logit y probit bajo un enfoque clásico y bayesiano
title Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
spellingShingle Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
Fernández Vásquez, Richard Fernando
incumplimiento de crédito
credit scoring
regresión logit
regresión probit
enfoque clásico
enfoque bayesiano
MCMC
credit default
credit scoring
logit regression
probit regression
classical approach
bayesian approach
MCMC
title_short Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
title_full Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
title_fullStr Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
title_full_unstemmed Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
title_sort Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approaches
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Fernández Vásquez, Richard Fernando
author Fernández Vásquez, Richard Fernando
author_facet Fernández Vásquez, Richard Fernando
author_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv incumplimiento de crédito
credit scoring
regresión logit
regresión probit
enfoque clásico
enfoque bayesiano
MCMC
credit default
credit scoring
logit regression
probit regression
classical approach
bayesian approach
MCMC
topic incumplimiento de crédito
credit scoring
regresión logit
regresión probit
enfoque clásico
enfoque bayesiano
MCMC
credit default
credit scoring
logit regression
probit regression
classical approach
bayesian approach
MCMC
description In the field of credit risk management, credit scoring is a fundamental statistical tool that allows financial institutions to improve their decisions on whether to approve or reject loans, adjusting their policies to the risk profile of each applicant. In response to this context, the overall objective of this research was to compare the logit and probit statistical regression models under the classical and Bayesian approaches, with the aim of developing a credit scoring model applied to personal loan applicants, aimed at segmenting them and proposing actions according to their level of risk. The research took a quantitative approach; the method used was hypothetical-deductive, with a non-experimental, cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational design. The population consisted of 5,584 personal loan applicants, both compliant and non-compliant, whose data were obtained from the DataCamp platform as part of an academic initiative aimed at credit risk analysis. For the development of the study, a training sample and a validation sample were established, corresponding to 70% and 30% of the data, respectively. The logit and probit statistical models estimated under the classical and Bayesian approaches were compared. The results showed that, when considering the performance indicators—accuracy, F1-score, area under the ROC curve, and Gini index—the logit regression model under the Bayesian approach performed best, with values of 0.6201, 0.6310, 65.6286, and 31.2573, respectively.
publishDate 2026
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2026-03-30
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
Peer Reviewed
Evaluado por pares
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738
10.21754/iecos.v27i1.2738
url https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738
identifier_str_mv 10.21754/iecos.v27i1.2738
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv spa
eng
language spa
eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3572
https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3614
https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3586
https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3587
https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3588
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv Derechos de autor 2026 Richard Fernando Fernandez Vasquez
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Derechos de autor 2026 Richard Fernando Fernandez Vasquez
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
text/html
application/epub+zip
audio/mpeg
audio/mpeg
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv revista IECOS; Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026); 23-52
Revista IECOS; Vol. 27 Núm. 1 (2026); 23-52
2788-7480
2961-2845
10.21754/iecos.v27i1
reponame:Revistas - Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
instname:Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
instacron:UNI
instname_str Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
instacron_str UNI
institution UNI
reponame_str Revistas - Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
collection Revistas - Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1862104004447698944
spelling Credit risk management: comparison of logit and probit models under classical and Bayesian approachesGestión del riesgo crediticio: comparación de modelos logit y probit bajo un enfoque clásico y bayesianoFernández Vásquez, Richard Fernandoincumplimiento de créditocredit scoringregresión logitregresión probitenfoque clásicoenfoque bayesianoMCMCcredit defaultcredit scoringlogit regressionprobit regressionclassical approachbayesian approachMCMCIn the field of credit risk management, credit scoring is a fundamental statistical tool that allows financial institutions to improve their decisions on whether to approve or reject loans, adjusting their policies to the risk profile of each applicant. In response to this context, the overall objective of this research was to compare the logit and probit statistical regression models under the classical and Bayesian approaches, with the aim of developing a credit scoring model applied to personal loan applicants, aimed at segmenting them and proposing actions according to their level of risk. The research took a quantitative approach; the method used was hypothetical-deductive, with a non-experimental, cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational design. The population consisted of 5,584 personal loan applicants, both compliant and non-compliant, whose data were obtained from the DataCamp platform as part of an academic initiative aimed at credit risk analysis. For the development of the study, a training sample and a validation sample were established, corresponding to 70% and 30% of the data, respectively. The logit and probit statistical models estimated under the classical and Bayesian approaches were compared. The results showed that, when considering the performance indicators—accuracy, F1-score, area under the ROC curve, and Gini index—the logit regression model under the Bayesian approach performed best, with values of 0.6201, 0.6310, 65.6286, and 31.2573, respectively.En el ámbito de la gestión del riesgo crediticio, el credit scoring constituye una herramienta estadística fundamental que permite a las instituciones financieras mejorar sus decisiones de aprobación o rechazo de créditos, ajustando sus políticas al perfil de riesgo de cada solicitante. En respuesta a este contexto, el objetivo general de la presente investigación fue comparar los modelos estadísticos de regresión logit y probit bajo los enfoques clásico y bayesiano, con la finalidad de desarrollar un modelo de credit scoring aplicado a solicitantes de préstamos personales, orientado a segmentarlos y proponer acciones según su nivel de riesgo. La investigación tuvo un enfoque cuantitativo; el método empleado fue hipotético-deductivo, con un diseño no experimental, transversal, descriptivo y correlacional. La población estuvo conformada por 5 584 solicitantes de préstamos personales, tanto cumplidores como incumplidores, cuyos datos fueron obtenidos de la plataforma DataCamp como parte de una iniciativa académica orientada al análisis del riesgo crediticio. Para el desarrollo del estudio, se establecieron una muestra de entrenamiento y una de validación, correspondientes al 70 % y 30 % de los datos, respectivamente. Se compararon los modelos estadísticos logit y probit estimados bajo los enfoques clásico y bayesiano. Los resultados evidenciaron que, al considerar los indicadores de desempeño —precisión, F1-score, área bajo la curva ROC e índice de Gini—, el modelo de regresión logit bajo el enfoque bayesiano presentó el mejor rendimiento, con valores de 0.6201, 0.6310, 65.6286 y 31.2573, respectivamente.Universidad Nacional de Ingeniería2026-03-30info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPeer ReviewedEvaluado por paresapplication/pdftext/htmlapplication/epub+zipaudio/mpegaudio/mpeghttps://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/273810.21754/iecos.v27i1.2738revista IECOS; Vol. 27 No. 1 (2026); 23-52Revista IECOS; Vol. 27 Núm. 1 (2026); 23-522788-74802961-284510.21754/iecos.v27i1reponame:Revistas - Universidad Nacional de Ingenieríainstname:Universidad Nacional de Ingenieríainstacron:UNIspaenghttps://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3572https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3614https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3586https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3587https://revistas.uni.edu.pe/index.php/iecos/article/view/2738/3588Derechos de autor 2026 Richard Fernando Fernandez Vasquezhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:oai:revistas.uni.edu.pe:article/27382026-03-31T05:57:43Z
score 13.408945
Nota importante:
La información contenida en este registro es de entera responsabilidad de la institución que gestiona el repositorio institucional donde esta contenido este documento o set de datos. El CONCYTEC no se hace responsable por los contenidos (publicaciones y/o datos) accesibles a través del Repositorio Nacional Digital de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación de Acceso Abierto (ALICIA).