MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156749592 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v2n4p176

Applying Multiple Linear Regression and Neural Network to Predict Bank Performance

2009· article· en· W2156749592 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkLinear regressionVariablesEconometricsStatisticsInflation (cosmology)RegressionRegression analysisComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globalization and technological advancement has created a highly competitive market in the banking and finance industry. Performance of the industry depends heavily on the accuracy of the decisions made at managerial level. This study uses multiple linear regression technique and feed forward artificial neural network in predicting bank performance. The study aims to predict bank performance using multiple linear regression and neural network. The study then evaluates the performance of the two techniques with a goal to find a powerful tool in predicting the bank performance. Data of thirteen banks for the period 2001-2006 was used in the study. ROA was used as a measure of bank performance, and hence is a dependent variable for the multiple linear regressions. Seven variables including liquidity, credit risk, cost to income ratio, size, concentration ratio, inflation and GDP were used as independent variables. Under supervised learning, the dependent variable, ROA was used as the target output for the artificial neural network. Seven inputs corresponding to seven predictor variables were used for pattern recognition at the training phase. Experimental results from the multiple linear regression show that two variables: credit risk and cost to income ratio are significant in determining the bank performance. Two variables were found to explain about 60.9 percent of the total variation in the data with a mean square error (MSE) of 0.330. The artificial neural network was found to give optimal results by using thirteen hidden neurons. Testing results show that the seven inputs explain about 66.9 percent of the total variation in the data with a very low MSE of 0.00687. Performance of both methods is measured by mean square prediction error (MSPR) at the validation stage. The MSPR value for neural network is lower than the MPSR value for multiple linear regression (0.0061 against 0.6190). The study concludes that artificial neural network is the more powerful tool in predicting bank performance.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it