Could Large Language Models work as Post-hoc Explainability Tools in Credit Risk Models?

arning, focusing on two roles: translators and autonomous explainers. Using a personal lending dataset from LendingClub, we evaluate three commercial LLMs, including GPT-4-turbo, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini-2.0-Flash. Results provide strong evidence for the translator role. In contrast, autonomous explanations show low alignment with model-based attributions. Few-shot prompting improves feature overlap for logistic regression but does not consistently benefit XGBoost, suggesting that LLMs have limited capacity to recover non-linear, interaction-driven reasoning from prompt cues alone. Our findings position LLMs as effective narrative interfaces grounded in auditable model attributions, rather than as substitutes for post-hoc explainers in credit risk model governance. Practitioners should leverage LLMs to bridge the communication gap between complex model outputs and regulatory or business stakeholders, while preserving the rigor and traceability required by credit risk governance frameworks.