Advancing enterprise credit rating through multi-head self-attention and transfer learning


Abstract

This study introduces the multi-head self-attention rotary-positional encoding Informer (MHSA-RPEI), a novel enterprise credit rating model that leverages self-correlation weights and positional information of financial indicators to enhance rating accuracy. Corporate credit rating presents challenges such as temporal dynamics, complex non-linear relationships, and cross-regional variations, which traditional and deep learning models struggle to address. The MHSA-RPEI model overcomes these limitations through four innovations: (1) objective MHSA-RPEI model, which is specifically designed for credit rating, achieving high precision using only financial data and serving as an objective and validated tool; (2) revolutionary rotary positional encoding (RoPE), which enhances temporal modeling, improving dynamic risk assessment; (3) strategic transfer learning (TL), which facilitates cross-regional adaptations, mitigating data scarcity and domain variations; and (4) optimized informer architecture, which improves long-term risk forecasting based on extensive financial time series. Experiments on the U.S., Chinese, and Japanese financial data showed that MHSA-RPEI achieved 92.16% accuracy (U.S.), 90.32% (China), and 92.50% (Japan), with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve cores ranging from 88.47% to 91.95%, surpassing traditional and state-of-the-art models. Furthermore, TL experiments highlighted the exceptional adaptability of the MHSA-RPEI for cross-regional applications, yielding performance gains of 5%–6%. Ablation studies confirmed that the RoPE and self-correlation weight modules were crucial to the effectiveness of the model.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].