MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215603906 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2022.10.032

A transformer-based model for default prediction in mid-cap corporate markets

2022· preprint· en· W3215603906 on OpenAlexafffund
Kamesh Korangi, Christophe Mues, Cristián Bravo

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Operational Research · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceTransformerDeep learningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningCredit riskEngineeringFinanceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study mid-cap companies, i.e. publicly traded companies with less than US$10 billion in market capitalisation. Using a large dataset of US mid-cap companies observed over 30 years, we look to predict the default probability term structure over the short to medium term and understand which data sources (i.e. fundamental, market or pricing data) contribute most to the default risk. Whereas existing methods typically require that data from different time periods are first aggregated and turned into cross-sectional features, we frame the problem as a multi-label panel data classification problem. To tackle it, we then employ transformer models, a state-of-the-art deep learning model emanating from the natural language processing domain. To make this approach suitable to the given credit risk setting, we use a loss function for multi-label classification, to deal with the term structure, and propose a multi-channel architecture with differential training that allows the model to use all input data efficiently. Our results show that the proposed deep learning architecture produces superior performance, resulting in a sizeable improvement in AUC (Area Under the receiver operating characteristic Curve) over traditional models. In order to interpret the model, we also demonstrate how to produce an importance ranking for the different data sources and their temporal relationships, using a Shapley approach for feature groups.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.551
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.041 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Operational ResearchSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207