Enhanced Credit Score Prediction Using Ensemble Deep Learning Model
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
In contemporary economic society, credit scores are crucial for every participant. A robust credit evaluation system is essential for the profitability of core businesses such as credit cards, loans, and investments for commercial banks and the financial sector. This paper combines high-performance models like XGBoost and LightGBM, already widely used in modern banking systems, with the powerful TabNet model. We have developed a potent model capable of accurately determining credit score levels by integrating Random Forest, XGBoost, and TabNet, and through the stacking technique in ensemble modeling. This approach surpasses the limitations of single models and significantly advances the precise credit score prediction. In the following sections, we will explain the techniques we used and thoroughly validate our approach by comprehensively comparing a series of metrics such as Precision, Recall, F1, and AUC. By integrating Random Forest, XGBoost, and with the TabNet deep learning architecture, these models complement each other, demonstrating exceptionally strong overall performance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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