Using machine learning algorithms with improved accuracy to analyze and predict employee attrition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human migration is based on pull factors that individuals evaluate when it comes to moving to a different territory. Likewise, employee attrition is a phenomenon that represents the tendency to a reduction in employees within an organization. This research paper aims to develop and evaluate machine learning algorithms, namely Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Binary Logistic Regression, to predict employee attrition using the IBM dataset available on Kaggle. The objective is to provide organizations with a proactive approach to employee retention and human resource management by creating accurate predictive models. Employee attrition has significant implications for an organization's reputation, profitability, and overall structure. By accurately predicting employee attrition, organizations can identify the factors contributing to it and implement data-driven human resources management practices. This study contributes to improving decision-making processes, including hiring and firing decisions, and ultimately enhances an organization's capital. The IBM dataset used in this study consists of anonymized employee records and their employment outcomes. It provides a comprehensive HR data representation for analysis and prediction. Three machine learning algorithms, Decision Tree, Random Forest, and Binary Logistic Regression, were utilized in this research. These algorithms were selected for their potential to improve accuracy in predicting employee attrition. The Logistic Regression model yielded the highest accuracy of 87.44% among the tested algorithms. By leveraging this study's findings, organizations can develop predictive models to identify factors contributing to employee attrition. These insights can inform strategic decisions and optimize human resource management practices.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".