Reconstruction Rating Model of Sovereign Debt by Logical Analysis of Data
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
Sovereign debt ratings provided by rating agencies measure the solvency of a country, as gauged by a lender or an investor. It is an indication of the risk involved in investment and should be determined correctly and in a well-timed manner. The current system is lacking transparency of rating criteria and mechanism. The present study reconstructs sovereign debt ratings through logical analysis of data (LAD), which is based on the theory of Boolean functions. It organizes groups of countries according to 20 World Bank-defined variables for the period 2012–2015. The Fitch Rating Agency, one of the three big global rating agencies, is used as a case study. An approximate algorithm was crucial in exploring the rating method, in correcting the agency’s errors, and in determining the estimated rating of otherwise unrated countries. The outcome was a decision tree for each year. Each country was assigned a rating. On average, the algorithm reached almost 98% matched ratings in the training set and was verified by 84% in the test set.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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