MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311165868 · doi:10.1111/exsy.13203

Estimation of optimum thresholds for binary classification using genetic algorithm: An application to solve a credit scoring problem

2022· article· en· W4311165868 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Systems · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDisjoint setsBinary classificationBinary numberValue (mathematics)AlgorithmGenetic algorithmArtificial neural networkReceiver operating characteristicArtificial intelligenceData miningMachine learningPattern recognition (psychology)MathematicsSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The main issue in a classification problem is classifying observations into various disjoint classes. Different classification techniques generate a continuous number between a and b, usually between 0 and 1; thus, the optimal cut‐off value(s) must be carefully selected to discriminate classes precisely. The decision is about setting a threshold value and transforming the continuous score into a binary output. Therefore, in addition to using the so‐called sophisticated classification methods to have a more accurate classification, there is a need to identify and choose the optimal threshold value(s). However, the latter has not been thoroughly investigated. Hence, this study proposes an approach based on a Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Neural Networks (NNs) to automatically find customized cut‐off values, considering different performance criteria and given datasets. Since credit scoring is a binary classification problem, two popular credit scoring datasets, namely “Australian” and “German” credit datasets, are used to test the proposed approach. Our numerical results revealed that the proposed GA‐NN model could successfully find customized acceptance thresholds, considering predetermined performance criteria, including Accuracy, Estimated Misclassification Cost (EMC), and Area under ROC Curve (AUC) for the tested datasets. Furthermore, the best‐obtained results and the paired‐samples t ‐test results show that utilizing the customized cut‐off points leads to a more accurate classification than the commonly‐used threshold value of 0.5.

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 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 score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.239 · 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