MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2362020385

Investigation of multilayer perceptron and class imbalance problems for credit rating

2014· article· en· W2362020385 on OpenAlexaff
Zhisheng Zhao, Shuxiang Xu, Byeong Ho Kang, Mmj Kabir, Yiming Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural networkClass (philosophy)PerceptronMultilayer perceptronSelection (genetic algorithm)Data miningPattern recognition (psychology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multilayer perceptron (MLP) neural network is widely used in automatic credit scoring systems with high accuracies and efficiencies. However, class imbalance problems severely harm the prediction accuracy, when the number of instances in one class greatly overweighs the other class. In credit scoring datasets, class imbalance problems exist in fault detection models since there are always less unqualified cases than approved applications. In this work, we investigate the affection of different MLP structure to the prediction ability and develop a novel instance selection method to solve class imbalance problems in German credit datasets. We train 34 models 20 times with different initial weights and training instances. Each model has 6 to 39 hidden units in one hidden layer. Our test results prove that the prediction accuracy of the optimized model with our new instance selection methods is 5% higher than the best result reported in the relevant literature of recent years. We also summarize the tendency of scoring accuracy when the numbers of hidden units in MLP increases. The results of this work can be applied not only for credit scoring, but also in other MLP neural network applications, especially when the distribution of instances in a dataset is imbalanced.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania)Same topicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionFrench-language works237,207