Cited by 2Financial Distress and Bankruptcy PredictionCorporate Insolvency and GovernanceForecasting Techniques and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Explainable machine learning for corporate financial distress prediction in Vietnam

Open access
Le Nam, Tuyen, Phan Huy, Tam·2026·Cogent Business & Management

Abstract

Corporate financial distress generates substantial costs for firms and the broader economy, making timely early-warning tools especially important in emerging markets. This study develops an interpretable distress-prediction framework for Vietnamese listed companies by assessing whether modern classifiers outperform a theory-driven logistic benchmark and by identifying economically meaningful risk drivers. Using firm-year data from 2014 to 2024, the analysis combines accounting indicators, market-based signals, and a macroeconomic factor. Models are trained on 2014 to 2021 with time-aware cross-validation and evaluated on 2022 to 2024 using ranking metrics, classification performance, calibration, and Shapley additive explanations. The comparison includes logistic regression, decision tree, random forest, support vector machine with radial basis function kernel, multilayer perceptron, and extreme gradient boosting. Ensemble models perform best: random forest achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of about 0.946 and a balanced F1 score near 0.74, closely followed by extreme gradient boosting. Explanations show that current operating profitability is the strongest nonlinear driver, with distress risk rising sharply once firms become loss-making. Accumulated profitability, working-capital liquidity, firm size, market valuation, and inflation add further predictive value. The study offers an auditable framework for investors, lenders, managers, and supervisors in Vietnam.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23311975.2026.2670659

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.1016/j.eswa.2016.12.020 · DOI
  2. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1968.tb00843.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/jifm.12053 · DOI
  4. 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2984412 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.eswa.2017.04.006 · DOI
  6. 10.2307/2490171 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1086/260062 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1023/A:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1007/s10614-020-10042-0 · DOI
  10. 10.1145/2939672.2939785 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv Preprint, arXiv:1702.08608. · arXiv
  12. 10.1007/978-3-032-06179-9_4 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1970.tb00518.x · DOI
  14. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1985.tb04949.x · DOI
  15. 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.08.016 · DOI
  16. 10.22495/cgobrv7i3p8 · DOI
  17. 10.1023/B:RAST.0000013627.90884.b7 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1973.tb01415.x · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1007/s43621-025-02199-1 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.08.043 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Lundberg, S. M., & Lee, S.-I. (2017). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 4768–4777). NeurIPS (Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems).
  22. 10.1080/23322039.2025.2489708 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1974.tb03058.x · DOI
  24. 10.1016/0304-405X(84)90023-0 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1007/s10479-022-04766-5 · DOI
  26. 10.1109/IJCNN.1990.137710 · DOI
  27. 10.2307/2490395 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.007 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/14765284.2025.2549237 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/j.knosys.2013.12.006 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.eswa.2004.08.009 · DOI
  32. 10.1086/209665 · DOI
  33. 10.1007/978-3-032-10486-1_12 · DOI
  34. 10.3390/data7110160 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.044 · DOI
  36. 10.2307/2490859 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Le Nam, T., & Phan Huy, T.
Affiliations
University of Economics and Law and Vietnam National University
Venue
Cogent Business & Management
Published
2026-05-18
Volume
13
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-1975 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7161642708
Cited by
2
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2
FWCI
15.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cogent Business & Management (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
University of Economics and Law, Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
  • Social Sciences › Law › Corporate Insolvency and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Forecasting Techniques and Applications
Keywords
corporate financial distress prediction, early warning systems, explainable machine learning, SHAP, Vietnamese listed firms, random forest, extreme gradient boosting, operating profitability, firm size, market valuation, inflation, emerging markets, risk drivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review