An application of data mining classification and bi-level programming for optimal credit allocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates credit allocation policy making and its effect on economic development using bi-level programming. There are two challenging problems in bi-level credit allocation; at the first level government/public related institutes must allocate the credit strategically concerning sustainable development to regions and industrial sectors. At the second level, there are agent banks, which should allocate the credit tactically to individual applicants based on their own profitability and risk using their credit scoring models. There is a conflict of interest between these two stakeholders but the cooperation is inevitable. In this paper, a new bi-level programming formulation of the leader-follower game in association with sustainable development theory in the first level and data mining classifier at the second level is used to mathematically model the problem. The model is applied to a national development fund (NDF) as a government related organization and one of its agent banks. A new algorithm called Bi-level Genetic fuzzy apriori Algorithm (BGFAA) is introduced to solve the bilateral model. Experimental results are presented and compared with a unilateral policy making scenario by the leader. Findings show that although the objective functions of the leader are worse in the bilateral scenario but agent banks collaboration is attracted and guaranteed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".