MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410959326 · doi:10.3390/jrfm18060300

Forecasting Sovereign Credit Risk Amidst a Political Crisis: A Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approach

2025· article· en· W4410959326 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amira Abid

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit riskPoliticsArtificial intelligenceFinancial crisisSovereigntyBusinessFinancial systemPolitical scienceMachine learningEconomicsComputer scienceActuarial scienceKeynesian economicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to forecast the sovereign credit risk for Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia during political crises. Our approach uses machine learning models (Linear Regression, Ridge Regression, Lasso Regression, XGBoost, and Kernel Ridge) and deep learning models (RNN, LSTM, BiLSTM, and GRU) to predict CDS-based implied default probabilities. We compare the predictive accuracy of the tested models with the results showing that Linear Regression outperforms all other techniques, while deep learning architectures, such as RNN and GRU, demonstrate a competitive performance. To validate the sovereign credit risk prediction, we use the forecasted implied default probability from the Linear Regression model to determine the corresponding forecasted implied rating according to the Thomson Reuters StarMine Sovereign Risk model. The results reveal significant differences in the perceived creditworthiness of Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia, reflecting each country’s economic fundamentals and their ability to manage global shocks, particularly those related to the Russo-Ukrainian war. Specifically, Egypt is perceived as the most vulnerable, Morocco occupies an intermediate position, and Saudi Arabia is seen as having a low credit risk. This study provides valuable managerial insights by enhancing tools for the sovereign credit risk analysis, offering reliable decision-making in volatile global markets. The alignment between forecasted ratings and default probabilities underscores the practical relevance of the results, guiding stakeholders in effectively managing credit risks amidst economic uncertainty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207