Comparison of Binary Logit Model and Multinomial Logit Model in Predicting Corporate Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A critical issue in the prediction of corporate failures is, whether to categorize sample firms in a binary fashion into failed firms and non-failed firms or to classify failed firms according to multiple financial difficulties. As most previous studies only employ the binary approach in their forecast, this work compares both the binary logit model and the multinomial logit model to determine whether or not the accuracy of forecasting corporate failures can be improved by further classifying financially-failed firms. The binary logit model recognizes slightly-distressed events and bankruptcy-and-reorganizations events both as corporate failure, while the multinomial logit model distinguishes between levels of corporate failure events as slightly-distressed firms and bankruptcy-and-reorganization firms. The empirical results show that the misclassification errors and error costs of the binary logit model are smaller than those of the multinomial logit model, suggesting that the binary logit model performs superior to the multinomial logit model in predicting corporate failure. The comparison results imply that the slightly-distressed firms and bankruptcy-and-reorganization firms are similar in characteristics. The occurrence of slightly-distressed events is already on the verge of bankruptcy, signifying major financial failure in the company operations. In such case, investors and debtors should be especially alert to withdraw their investments or terminate their loans to prevent loss.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".