Gradient Descent Decision Tree Algorithm and Nonlinear Programming for Credit Risk Assessment and Credit Strategy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aimed to develop a scientific and accurate credit risk assessment model for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to support banks in credit decision-making. An improved decision tree model is proposed by integrating regularization to control complexity and employing an ensemble learning approach to enhance prediction accuracy. Multiple weak classifiers are iteratively refined using gradient descent optimization to form a robust, strong classifier. The model is trained through supervised learning, with the default probability of SMEs as the objective function, enabling a quantitative assessment of credit risk. The findings show that the proposed gradient descent decision tree algorithm achieves an AUC of 0.99 under 70% and 80% training set ratios, outperforming Adaptive Boosting (AUC = 0.97), Random Forest (AUC = 0.91), and traditional decision trees (AUC = 0.82). To further optimize bank loan strategies, this paper constructs a nonlinear multi-objective programming model that maximizes expected loan returns while considering risk constraints. The proposed approach not only improves credit risk prediction but also assists banks in formulating optimal lending strategies. This study advances credit risk modelling by integrating regularization and ensemble learning, offering a novel and practical solution for SME credit assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".