The Good, the Bad, and the Bankrupt: A Super-Efficiency DEA and LASSO Approach Predicting Corporate Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corporate failure prediction remains a major topic in the literature. Numerous methodologies have been established for its assessment, while data envelopment analysis (DEA) has received particular attention. This study contributes to the literature, establishing a new approach in the construction process of prediction models based on the combination of logistic LASSO and an advanced version of data envelopment analysis (DEA). We adopt the modified slacks-based super-efficiency measure (modified super-SBM-DEA), following the “Worst practice frontier” approach, and focus on the selection process of predictive variables, implementing the logistic LASSO regression. A balanced sample with one-to-one matching between forty-five firms that filed for reorganization under U.S. bankruptcy law during the period 2014–2020 and forty-five non-failed firms of a similar size from the U.S. energy economic sector has been used for the empirical analysis. The proposed methodology offers superior results in terms of corporate failure prediction accuracy. For the dynamic assessment of failure, Malmquist DEA has been implemented during the five fiscal years prior to the event of failure, offering insights into financial distress before the event of a default. The model outperforms alternatives by achieving higher overall prediction accuracy (85.6%), the better identification of failed firms (91.1%), and the improved classification of non-failed firms (80%). Compared to prior DEA-based models, it demonstrates superior predictive performance with lower Type I and Type II errors and higher sensitivity as well as specificity. These results highlight the model’s effectiveness as a reliable early warning tool for bankruptcy 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".