Accuracy Comparison between Five Machine Learning Algorithms for Financial Risk Evaluation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate prediction of loan default is crucial in credit risk evaluation. A slight deviation from true accuracy can often cause financial losses to lending institutes. This study describes the non-parametric approach that compares five different machine learning classifiers combined with a focus on sufficiently large datasets. It presents the findings on various standard performance measures such as accuracy, precision, recall and F1 scores in addition to Receiver Operating Curve-Area Under Curve (ROC-AUC). In this study, various data pre-processing techniques including normalization and standardization, imputation of missing values and the handling of imbalanced data using SMOTE will be discussed and implemented. Also, the study examines the use of hyper-parameters in various classifiers. During the model construction phase, various pipelines feed data to the five machine learning classifiers, and the performance results obtained from the five machine learning classifiers are based on sampling with SMOTE or hyper-parameters versus without SMOTE and hyper-parameters. Each classifier is compared to another in terms of accuracy during training and prediction phase based on out-of-sample data. The 2 data sets used for this experiment contain 1000 and 30,000 observations, respectively, of which the training/testing ratio is 80:20. The comparative results show that random forest outperforms the other four classifiers both in training and actual prediction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it