MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enhancing Knowledge Graph-based Credit Default Prediction via Double-Filter Negative Sampling

2025· article· W7135039814 on OpenAlexaff
Qixian Li, Zikun Guo, Bocheng Wang, Xicheng Du, Siyuan Chen, Wenyu Jiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province
KeywordsCredit riskSampling (signal processing)DefaultMeasure (data warehouse)Noise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are increasingly used in credit default prediction to model complex data relationships. However, the performance of KG embedding (KGE) is often hindered by low-quality negative samples generated by traditional random negative sampling (RNS) strategies. These low-quality samples limit the model’s ability to learn effective features of data relations. To address this, we propose a Double Filter based Similarity Negative Sampling (DNS) strategy. DNS first employs Bisecting K-means to cluster semantically similar entities, then performs a secondary filtering step to remove overly similar entities from each cluster, thus preventing pseudo-negative examples. We integrate DNS with the TransR model to create the TransR-DNS algorithm, which generates high-quality negative samples to optimise the KGE process. Experiments on a public credit dataset demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms baselines. By replacing traditional sampling with DNS, we improve the prediction performance across various models, validating the effectiveness of our strategy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFinancial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionFrench-language works237,207