4.7 Article

A new aspect on P2P online lending default prediction using meta-level phone usage data in China

期刊

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS
卷 111, 期 -, 页码 60-71

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.001

关键词

P2P online lending; Meta-level phone usage data; Default prediction; AdaBoost

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71390333, 91746111, 71702143, 71731009, 71732006, 71742005]
  2. Ministry of Education & China Mobile Joint Research Fund Program [MCM20160302]
  3. Shaanxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission [SFG2016789]
  4. Xi'an Science and Technology Bureau [2017111SF/RK005-(7)]
  5. Natural Science Foundation of Shaanxi Province [2017JQ7004]
  6. China Postdoctoral Science Fund [2016M602840]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P2P online lending platforms provide services where individuals lend money to others without the involvement of traditional financial institutions. Due to its convenience, the platforms have gained in popularity. However, these platforms may suffer a significant loss if they cannot make good loan decisions based on default prediction results. In this paper, we aim to support the loan decision on P2P platforms based on meta-level phone usage data when the information asymmetry exists for mass borrowers. We extract variables from phone usage data, and use an empirical study to analyze the relationship between these variables and loan default. Then a default prediction method is conducted for P2P lending based on the AdaBoost algorithm. The data used in this study are from the generalized used mobile phones, which make the method applicable to a wide range of users. The empirical study shows that phone usage patterns, including telecommunication patterns, mobility patterns, and App usage patterns contain predictive capability of loan default. The experiments on prediction method demonstrate satisfying performance, which suggests the proposed method has favorable potential being implemented in real-world P2P lending platforms.

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

4.7
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