Determinants of Credit Ratings and Comparison of the Rating Prediction Performances of Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the literature, new machine learning algorithms are dynamically produced in the field of artificial intelligence engineering and the algorithms are constantly updated with new parameter estimations. The performance of existing algorithms in various business areas is still an important topic of discussion. Also, machine learning algorithms are frequently used in long-term credit ratings, which is an crucially important sub-branch of finance. This study was conducted to determine which popular machine learning model performs better in credit scoring. Artificial Neural Network, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine and K Nearest Neighbor were used to determine the algorithm that is suitable for the structure, attribute content and distribution of the data, and the operating logic of the models. In the study, the long-term credit rating is the target variable and the remaining variables are the features, the prediction performances of these 4 algorithm, which are frequently used in previous studies such as credit rating, credit risk, fraud analysis were compared. After data preprocessing, a classification study was carried out using the features included in the model. The metrics used in the comparison are MSE, RMSE, MAE and accuracy. According to the metrics, RF algorithm showed the best performance in the credit scoring.
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 | 0.009 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".