Predicting financial distress in TSX-listed firms using machine learning algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigates the application of machine learning (ML) algorithms, a subset of artificial intelligence (AI), to predict financial distress in companies. Given the critical need for reliable financial health indicators, this research evaluates the predictive capabilities of various ML techniques on firm-level financial data. Methods: The dataset comprises financial ratios and firm-specific variables from 464 firms listed on the TSX. Multiple ML models were tested, including decision trees, random forests, support vector machines (SVM), and artificial neural networks (ANN). Recursive feature elimination with cross-validation (RFECV) and bootstrapped CART were also employed to enhance model stability and feature selection. Results: The findings highlight key predictors of financial distress, such as revenue growth, dividend growth, cash-to-current liabilities, and gross profit margins. Among the models tested, the ANN classifier achieved the highest accuracy at 98%, outperforming other algorithms. Discussion: The results suggest that ANN provides a robust and reliable method for financial distress prediction. The use of RFECV and bootstrapped CART contributes to the model's stability, underscoring the potential of ML tools in financial health monitoring. These insights carry valuable implications for auditors, regulators, and company management in enhancing practices around financial oversight and fraud detection.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".