MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142215756 · doi:10.18280/ria.350109

An Enhanced Bankruptcy Prediction Model Using Fuzzy Clustering Model and Random Forest Algorithm

2021· article· en· W3142215756 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sarojini Devi Saladi, Radhika Yarlagadda

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandom forestBankruptcy predictionBankruptcyComputer scienceCluster analysisBig dataData miningFuzzy logicArtificial intelligenceMachine learningFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid advancements made in Information Technologies (IT) have evolved in the prediction model for financial data. Research in the prediction of bankruptcy is inclining to owe to the growth of related associations with economic and social phenomena. Financial crises in recent scenarios have influenced the growth of financial institutions. Hence, the need for bankruptcy risk prediction at an earlier stage is of prime importance. Though several prediction algorithms were suggested, the predictive models' accuracy is still a challenging task. In this paper, a bankruptcy prediction model is developed by integrating the Fuzzy clustering model and Multi-objective random forest classifiers. The voluminous number of records of the financial dataset and polish bankruptcy dataset is collected from a public repository. It is pre-processed using a MapReduce technique, one of the Big Data approaches. Benefits given by big data approaches help to achieve better flexibility towards a variable declaration. The collected records are pre-processed and organized under efficient index construction. FCM is employed to cluster the data for analytic purposes. Finally, a multi-objective Random Forest classifier helps to develop a prediction model for bankruptcy. Experimental analysis is carried out with accuracy, precision, sensitivity, and specificity compared with existing, Genetic algorithms. Compared to the existing technique, the proposed technique has obtained 80% accuracy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionFrench-language works237,207