| Literature DB >> 34343180 |
Zhengwei Ma1, Wenjia Hou1, Dan Zhang1.
Abstract
Peer-to-Peer (P2P) lending provides convenient and efficient financing channels for small and medium-sized enterprises and individuals, and therefore it has developed rapidly since entering the market. However, due to the imperfection of the credit system and the influence of cyberspace restrictions, P2P network lending faces frequent borrower credit risk crises during the transaction process, with a high proportion of borrowers default. This paper first analyzes the basic development of China's P2P online lending and the credit risks of borrowers in the industry. Then according to the characteristics of P2P network lending and previous studies, a credit risk assessment indicators system for borrowers in P2P lending is formulated with 29 indicators. Finally, on the basis of the credit risk assessment indicators system constructed in this paper, BP neural network is built based on the BP algorithm, which is trained by the LM algorithm (Levenberg-Marquardt), Scaled Conjugate Gradient, and Bayesian Regularization respectively, to complete the credit risk assessment model. By comparing the results of three mentioned training methodologies, the BP neural network trained by the LM algorithm is finally adopted to construct the credit risk assessment model of borrowers in P2P lending, in which the input layer node is 9, the hidden layer node is 11 and output layer node is 1. The model can provide practical guidance for China and other countries' P2P lending platforms, and therefore to establish and improve an accurate and effective borrower credit risk management system.Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34343180 PMCID: PMC8330911 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 3Log-Sigmoid function.
Fig 4Tan-Sigmoid function.
P2P lending borrower credit risk assessment indicators.
| First Grade Indicators | Second Grade Indicators |
|---|---|
| A1 = gender | |
| A2 = age | |
| A3 = education | |
| A4 = marital status | |
| A5 = city | |
| A6 = working field | |
| A7 = company scale | |
| A8 = income range | |
| A9 = working years | |
| A10 = loan amount | |
| A11 = annul interest rate | |
| A12 = loan term | |
| A13 = lending purpose | |
| A14 = prepayment rate | |
| A15 = guaranty mode | |
| A16 = repayment mode | |
| A17 = application number | |
| A18 = repayment number | |
| A19 = overdue number | |
| A20 = successful loan number | |
| A21 = total loan | |
| A22 = credit limit | |
| A23 = overdue amount | |
| A24 = unpaid loan principal and interests | |
| A25 = serious overdue number | |
| A26 = house property (with or without) | |
| A27 = house loan (with or without) | |
| A28 = vehicle information (with or without) | |
| A29 = car loan (with or without) |
Fig 13Exploratory data analysis for age (A2).
Fig 16Exploratory data analysis for credit limit (A22).
Compared the BP model with competitive models.
| BP | 999348109517601% |
| SVM | 999348109517601% |
| Random Forest | 100% |
Fig 17First read Excel data.
Fig 18Data standardization.
P2P lending borrower credit risk assessment indicators.
| First Grade Indicators | Second Grade Indicators |
|---|---|
| A1 gender | |
| A2 age | |
| A3 education | |
| A4 marital status | |
| A5 city | |
| A6 working field | |
| A7 company scale | |
| A8 income range | |
| A9 working years | |
| A10 loan amount | |
| A11 annul interest rate | |
| A12 loan term | |
| A13 lending purpose | |
| A14 prepayment rate | |
| A15 guaranty mode | |
| A16 repayment mode | |
| A17 application number | |
| A18 repayment number | |
| A19 overdue number | |
| A20 successful loan number | |
| A21 total loan | |
| A22 credit limit | |
| A23 overdue amount | |
| A24 unpaid loan principal and interests | |
| A25 serious overdue number | |
| A26 house property (with or without) | |
| A27 house loan (with or without) | |
| A28 vehicle information (with or without) | |
| A29 car loan (with or without) |
Comparison of prediction with different hidden Layer Nodes (LM).
| Hidden layer nodes | Epoch | Performance | Gradient | Validation Checks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | 1.78e-13 | 3.81e-09 | 4 | |
| 314 | 4.49e-09 | 2.02e-05 | 6 | |
| 207 | 1.50e-12 | 9.98e-08 | 0 | |
| 565 | 8.75e-12 | 9.96e-08 | 0 | |
| 27 | 8.71e-15 | 8.92e-08 | 0 | |
| 25 | 0.000632 | 0.0655 | 6 | |
| 24 | 0.000606 | 0.00223 | 6 |
Comparison of prediction with different hidden layer nodes (SCG).
| Hidden layer nodes | Epoch | Performance | Gradient | Validation Checks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 172 | 0.000734 | 0.00148 | 6 | |
| 190 | 0.000707 | 0.000655 | 6 | |
| 142 | 0.00122 | 0.00349 | 6 | |
| 179 | 0.000906 | 0.00158 | 6 | |
| 229 | 0.000783 | 0.00156 | 6 | |
| 96 | 0.00167 | 0.00519 | 6 | |
| 142 | 0.000960 | 0.00176 | 6 | |
| 174 | 0.000851 | 0.00399 | 6 |
Comparison of prediction with different hidden layer nodes (BR).
| Hidden layer nodes | Epoch | Performance | Gradient | Validation Checks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 190 | 5.98e-12 | 3.70e-07 | 0 | |
| 92 | 8.43e-12 | 8.83e-06 | 0 | |
| 378 | 4.50e-12 | 2.03e-05 | 0 | |
| 462 | 4.53e-12 | 2.34e-06 | 0 | |
| 178 | 1.85e-10 | 8.79e-07 | 0 | |
| 373 | 2.42e-12 | 1.57e-05 | 0 | |
| 308 | 1.96e-13 | 1.13e-08 | 0 | |
| 141 | 1.92e-12 | 2.03e-08 | 0 |
Comparison of validation.
| Precision | Recall | F-Score | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| 1 | 11 | 1 |