Machine learning and the prediction of changes in profitability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study uses machine‐learning methods to predict next‐period change in profitability based on a model proposed by Penman and Zhang (2004, Working paper, Columbia University and University of California, Berkeley; “PZ”). We find that new machine‐learning methods predict out of sample substantially better than traditional regression methods and provide richer interpretations about the role and impact of different predictor variables through their nonlinear relationships and interaction effects. For example, our results contrast with previous research by showing that both components of the DuPont decomposition (change in profit margin and change in asset turnover) are informative of next‐period changes in profitability. Our results are robust across different performance metrics, alternative machine‐learning models, and software. Furthermore, an unconstrained machine‐learning model using a larger feature space could not significantly improve the performance of the PZ model. PZ variables alone accounted for most of the explanatory power of the unconstrained model, suggesting the PZ model is both well specified (in terms of feature selection) and robust in higher dimensional settings. With respect to the economic significance of this information, we find mixed results. The market appears to adjust its expectations more in line with the machine‐learning predictions relative to the PZ model but the portfolio returns are not significantly different.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".