Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Machine learning increasingly informs high-stakes credit decisions, yet model opacity complicates transparency and model governance. This review combines a systematic evidence map of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in credit risk with a task-oriented narrative synthesis. A Scopus search covering 2017–2026 produced 958 unique records; a frozen title-and-abstract codebook assigned 550 to the core map. SHAP was named in 39.1% of core titles or abstracts, whereas 1.3–1.5% contained strict or broad explanation-quality evaluation signals. A targeted full-text check identified both unsupported signals and evaluation practices missed by metadata coding. The percentages therefore describe reporting visibility rather than full-text practice. The task–artefact–method–validation (TAMV) framework connects explanation outputs to adverse-action reasons, applicant recourse, model review, and documentation, specifying the evidence each use requires. A proposed finance-specific benchmark translates this synthesis into testable priorities. The review was not prospectively registered. Its contribution is a reproducible reporting map and task-specific validation agenda, not a comparative ranking of explanation methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xie et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: