Machine learning in corporate M and A valuation: an empirical study based on big data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning provides new perspectives and methods for company M&A valuation due to its powerful data processing and prediction capabilities.This paper analyzes the prediction steps based on the decision tree algorithm, i.e., decision tree generation, attribute selection, decision tree construction, and accuracy metrics, and obtains the relevant data of AB after merger and acquisition through data mining.The model and SHAP framework are utilized to predict the financial risk, financial performance, and enterprise value of the two post-merger companies.The precision, recall, and F1 scores of this paper's model range from 91.25 to 93.81, which has a good performance of company M&A valuation.This paper's model predicts that in 2024, the key indicator of AB's financial crisis is Gross margin, which has an importance of 0.297, and the possibility of AB's financial crisis increases when the value of Gross margin is between -0.0279 and -0.0014.The accuracy of the financial performance prediction of this paper's model is more than 0.97, which can accurately value the company's performance.The model in this paper predicts the enterprise value of AB in 2024 to be 52.14yuan/share,respectively.
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".