{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2026:QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE","short_pith_number":"pith:QMKIA63R","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"8314807b71e2d91434cd0b973f2bec111a0fff55a7196dfd2aaaf402b51e6e36","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2602.18895","version":2},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Could Large Language Models work as Post-hoc Explainability Tools in Credit Risk Models?","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.LG"],"primary_cat":"q-fin.RM","authors_text":"Dingyuan Liu, Liya Li, Wenxi Geng, Yiqing Wang","submitted_at":"2026-02-21T16:35:06Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in translating model-based explanations into human-readable narratives. This study evaluates whether LLMs can serve as post-hoc explainability interfaces for credit risk models, focusing on their ability to preserve feature-importance rankings and generate autonomous explanations. Using a LendingClub dataset, we compare LLM outputs with SHAP and coefficient-based attributions on three major LLMs, including GPT-4-turbo, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, and Gemini-2.5-Flash. Results indicate that LLMs reliably reproduce reference rankings under controlled prompt"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2602.18895","kind":"arxiv","version":2},"metadata":{"license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","primary_cat":"q-fin.RM","submitted_at":"2026-02-21T16:35:06Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.LG"],"title_canon_sha256":"628d96c1c08ae0eafcce01caf494a7d366b49d038fb6abbc1c0f6ad051e5632f","abstract_canon_sha256":"bd34da2192cb54ca0c8921ca6980800694c6b85179ba6d2ab772ae2e694807a2"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234819Z","signature_b64":"0PqmwOwDJedRNmZ58+u6PiuS9AJt+ktCdM1j/Bda2e6E3PF2m7DgPblsf/EMHcac385iuPeGzxa/Mi5rccrPCA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"8314807b71e2d91434cd0b973f2bec111a0fff55a7196dfd2aaaf402b51e6e36","last_reissued_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.233977Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.233977Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Could Large Language Models work as Post-hoc Explainability Tools in Credit Risk Models?","license":"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.LG"],"primary_cat":"q-fin.RM","authors_text":"Dingyuan Liu, Liya Li, Wenxi Geng, Yiqing Wang","submitted_at":"2026-02-21T16:35:06Z","abstract_excerpt":"Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in translating model-based explanations into human-readable narratives. This study evaluates whether LLMs can serve as post-hoc explainability interfaces for credit risk models, focusing on their ability to preserve feature-importance rankings and generate autonomous explanations. Using a LendingClub dataset, we compare LLM outputs with SHAP and coefficient-based attributions on three major LLMs, including GPT-4-turbo, Claude-Sonnet-4.5, and Gemini-2.5-Flash. Results indicate that LLMs reliably reproduce reference rankings under controlled prompt"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2602.18895","kind":"arxiv","version":2},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2602.18895/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2602.18895","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2602.18895v2","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2602.18895","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"QMKIA63R4LMR","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"QMKIA63R4LMRINGN","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"QMKIA63R","created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2604.17327","citing_title":"Signal or Noise in Multi-Agent LLM-based Stock Recommendations?","ref_index":7,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE","json":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/QMKIA63R"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/QMKIA63R","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2602.18895&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/QMKIA63R4LMRINGNBOLT6K7MCE/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00","updated_at":"2026-05-20T00:04:26.234120+00:00"}