4.6 Article

Comparison of individual, ensemble and integrated ensemble machine learning methods to predict China's SME credit risk in supply chain finance

期刊

NEURAL COMPUTING & APPLICATIONS
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 S41-S50

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00521-016-2304-x

关键词

Supply chain finance; Credit risk; Small- and medium-sized enterprises; Core enterprises; Individual machine learning; Ensemble machine learning; Integrated ensemble machine learning

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71373072, 71501066]
  2. China Scholarship Council [201506135022]
  3. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20130161110031]
  4. Foundation for Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [71221001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supply chain finance (SCF) becomes more important for small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to global credit crunch, supply chain financing woes and tightening credit criteria for corporate lending. Currently, predicting SME credit risk is significant for guaranteeing SCF in smooth operation. In this paper, we apply six methods, i.e., one individual machine learning (IML, i.e., decision tree) method, three ensemble machine learning methods [EML, i.e., bagging, boosting, and random subspace (RS)], and two integrated ensemble machine learning methods (IEML, i.e., RS-boosting and multiboosting), to predict SMEs credit risk in SCF and compare the effectiveness and feasibility of six methods. In the experiment, we choose the quarterly financial and non-financial data of 48 listed SMEs from Small and Medium Enterprise Board of Shenzhen Stock Exchange, six listed core enterprises (CEs) from Shanghai Stock Exchange and three listed CEs from Shenzhen Stock Exchange during the period of 2012-2013 as the empirical samples. Experimental results reveal that the IEML methods acquire better performance than IML and EML method. In particular, RS-boosting is the best method to predict SMEs credit risk among six methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据