IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2407.17624.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Traditional Methods Outperform Generative LLMs at Forecasting Credit Ratings

Author

Listed:
  • Felix Drinkall
  • Janet B. Pierrehumbert
  • Stefan Zohren

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to perform well for many downstream tasks. Transfer learning can enable LLMs to acquire skills that were not targeted during pre-training. In financial contexts, LLMs can sometimes beat well-established benchmarks. This paper investigates how well LLMs perform in the task of forecasting corporate credit ratings. We show that while LLMs are very good at encoding textual information, traditional methods are still very competitive when it comes to encoding numeric and multimodal data. For our task, current LLMs perform worse than a more traditional XGBoost architecture that combines fundamental and macroeconomic data with high-density text-based embedding features.

Suggested Citation

  • Felix Drinkall & Janet B. Pierrehumbert & Stefan Zohren, 2024. "Traditional Methods Outperform Generative LLMs at Forecasting Credit Ratings," Papers 2407.17624, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2407.17624
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.17624
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2407.17624. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.