The Investigation and Comparison of the Performance of Heuristic Methods in the Prediction of the Type of Auditor’s Opinion in Firms Accepted in Tehran Stock Exchange
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Stock companies play a key role in the economy of any country and the success of these companies depends to a great degree on investors and creditors’ interest who invest in them. Auditors’ reports assume a special position in the decisions taken by investors and creditors. Therefore, the importance of offering high quality information with a view on recent events in the firms (bankruptcy and dissolution, financial scandals, loses suffered by creditors, etc.) becomes clear; moreover, audit reports can prevent these events by creating certain signals. To this end, modern heuristic methods for the prediction of the type of auditor’s opinion are offered in this paper. The aim of this study is to investigate the ability of probabilistic neural network method and to compare it with artificial neural network in order to identify and predict the type of independent auditor’s opinion in Iran in the time period of 2009 to 2013. The patterns used to predict the type of independent auditor’s opinion can be divided into different categories-these categories are becoming more complex and more advanced: single-variable models, multi discriminant analysis, regression function, neural networks, etc. neural networks are getting increasing popularity among researchers for their non-linear and non-parametric properties. Therefore, modern approaches are used in this study to predict the type of auditor’s opinion.</p>
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 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 | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".