Credit Scoring Models for a Tunisian Microfinance Institution: Comparison between Artificial Neural Network and Logistic Regression
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares, for a microfinance institution, the performance of two individual classification models: Logistic Regression (Logit) and Multi-Layer Perceptron Neural Network (MLP), to evaluate the credit risk problem and discriminate good creditors from bad ones. Credit scoring systems are currently in common use by numerous financial institutions worldwide. However, credit scoring using a non-parametric statistical technique with the microfinance industry, is a relatively recent application. In Tunisia, no model which employs a non-parametric statistical technique has yet, as far as we know, been published. This lack is surprising since the implementation of credit scoring should contribute towards the efficiency of microfinance institutions, thereby improving their competitiveness. This paper builds a non-parametric credit scoring model based on the Multi-Layer perceptron approach (MLP) and benchmarks its performance against Logistic Regression (LR) techniques. Based on a sample of 300 borrowers from a Tunisian microfinance institution, the results reveal that Logistic Regression outperforms neural network models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it