Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

KACDP: A Highly Interpretable Credit Default Prediction Model

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Applying Kolmogorov-Arnold networks to individual credit default prediction yields a model whose ROC_AUC (0.8670) exceeds logistic regression (0.8503), XGBoost (0.8634), and SVM (0.8555) on the GMSC dataset, while retaining…

desk verdict Routine KAN application on GMSC with a small AUC edge, but the comparison is borrowed from another paper and the F1 metric looks off; the headline result is not supported as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17783 v1 pith:KN7IJYSU submitted 2024-11-26 q-fin.RM cs.LG

Kun Liu , Jin Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.RMcs.LG MSC 91G4068T07
keywords Kolmogorov-ArnoldnetworkscreditdefaultpredictioninterpretabilityROCAUCF1scoreGMSCdatasetfeatureattributionB-splineactivations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a credit-default model built from Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) outperforms traditional logistic regression, XGBoost, and SVM on the GMSC dataset, achieving a ROC_AUC of 0.8670 versus 0.8503, 0.8634, and 0.8555, and an F1 of 0.9675 versus 0.9665, 0.9669, and 0.9665. It also claims the model is transparent: feature attribution scores name the dominant risk factors, and the network structure diagram lets a user trace each input through learned univariate functions to the output. This matters because regulated financial institutions need models that do more than predict accurately; they must be able to explain why each borrower was scored as they were. The paper's contribution is the first use of KANs for individual credit default prediction, arguing the architecture's interpretability costs little in accuracy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Kolmogorov-Arnold Network layer, in which each connection carries a learnable univariate function $\phi(x) = w_b \operatorname{silu}(x) + w_s \sum_i c_i B_i(x)$ combining a base SILU activation with a B-spline. Because the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem expresses any continuous multivariate function as a composition of sums of univariate functions, stacking these layers lets the model's decision be decomposed into per-feature contributions. This decomposition is what carries the interpretability claim: the trained functions themselves give a feature's attribution score, and the network graph doubles as a decision-path diagram.

What would settle it

Run logistic regression, XGBoost, and SVM on the exact same GMSC train/test split and preprocessing used for KACDP_OP, each with its own hyperparameter tuning, and check whether KACDP_OP's ROC_AUC of 0.8670 still beats them; if any baseline reaches or exceeds that value, the paper's central outperformance claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, KACDP_OP, a KAN with width [10, 4, 1], achieves the best ROC_AUC among the compared models on the GMSC dataset (0.8670), while the simpler KACDP_OI (width [10, 1]) reaches 0.8640, still ahead of the cited logistic regression and SVM results. Feature attribution scores identify the borrower's debt-to-income ratio (2.2836) and credit-card utilization (1.3468) as the strongest drivers, and the model's structural visualization shows how each input is processed by a learned activation function before a final summation.

Load-bearing premise

The outperformance claim assumes the baseline scores quoted from Han et al. were computed under the same data preprocessing, feature engineering, train/test split, and tuning as the authors' own KACDP runs; if those conditions differ, the reported AUC differences are not meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the numbers hold under a common protocol, lenders could adopt KACDP-style models to obtain XGBoost-level accuracy with per-prediction explanations that satisfy audit requirements.
  • The simple one-layer variant (KACDP_OI) loses only 0.003 AUC to the deeper version, suggesting interpretability does not force a large accuracy sacrifice.
  • Feature-attribution output pointing to debt-to-income ratio and credit-card utilization gives lenders a concrete, data-driven shortlist of variables to monitor or collect more carefully.
  • Training a KAN with Adam on the 223,958-row GMSC dataset took roughly 10 seconds, making the architecture practical for routine credit-scoring pipelines.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My extension: if the univariate decomposition, rather than raw capacity, drives the AUC gain, then a KAN with similar parameter count should beat an MLP on tabular finance data; this is testable and goes beyond the paper's comparison set.
  • My extension: the same visualization and attribution machinery could transfer to other regulated tabular domains such as insurance pricing, fraud detection, or medical risk scoring, but the paper does not demonstrate those transfers.
  • My extension: the 'first application' claim is a novelty statement that could be checked against earlier spline-based or functional-link networks; if such works exist, the paper's lasting value would be the benchmark result rather than the architectural first.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes applying Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs) to personal credit default prediction, a first claimed application in this domain. It constructs two KAN-based models, KACDP_OP (width [10,4,1]) and KACDP_OI (width [10,1]), and evaluates them on the GMSC dataset using ROC_AUC and F1. The reported results in Table 1 show KACDP_OP with AUC 0.8670, against 0.8503 for Logistic Regression, 0.8634 for XGBoost, and 0.8555 for SVM, with F1 values around 0.9675. The paper also claims interpretability through feature attribution scores and model structure visualization. The central claims are that KACDP outperforms mainstream baselines and provides transparent decision-making.

Significance. The idea of using KANs for credit scoring is timely, given the financial industry's need for interpretable models, and the paper uses a publicly available dataset with a clear problem formulation. The model-structure visualizations are a useful illustration of KAN-based decision paths. If properly validated, this would be a useful application note. However, the empirical evidence as presented does not establish the claimed superiority: the baseline numbers are borrowed from another study, the F1 metric is not fully specified and is implausibly high for the data's default rate, and the interpretability analysis relies on a feature-attribution method originating from the same group that proposed KANs, with no independent validation. The contribution is therefore currently a promising but unsubstantiated pilot study rather than a demonstrated improvement.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] The central outperformance claim is not supported because the baseline scores for Logistic Regression, XGBoost, and SVM are not obtained under the authors' own protocol. Section 4.2 states that these results were 'directly cited' from Han et al. [31] because that paper used the same GMSC dataset. The manuscript does not establish that Han et al. used the same train/validation/test split, the same preprocessing (missing-value imputation, feature scaling, feature engineering), the same class-imbalance handling, or the same hyperparameter tuning as KACDP. The reported AUC gains are small (0.0036 over XGBoost and 0.0167 over Logistic Regression) and could easily be explained by split-dependent noise or differing preprocessing. A valid comparison must rerun all baselines on the same data folds under identical conditions and report confidence intervals, bootstrap estimates, or repeated-run variability.
  2. [§4.1.2 and Table 1] The F1 score is threshold-dependent, but the paper never specifies the decision threshold used to convert the KAN's probability output into binary predictions, nor does it report precision and recall. On the GMSC dataset, whose default rate is roughly 6.7%, F1 values around 0.9675 are implausibly high unless a nonstandard threshold, resampling scheme, or evaluation set is used. The near-constant F1 across models, grid sizes, and optimizers (Tables 2 and 3) further suggests that the metric as computed is not discriminating. The authors must state the threshold, describe any class-imbalance handling, report precision and recall, and provide error bars or significance tests.
  3. [§4.3.1] The interpretability claim is supported only by feature attribution scores computed with the KAN 2.0 method [34], which originates from the same research group that introduced the KAN architecture. No comparison is made with model-agnostic interpretability tools such as SHAP or LIME, and no validation (e.g., ablation studies, case-level analysis, or faithfulness metrics) shows that these scores reflect the model's actual decision process. The paper should cross-check the attribution rankings with an independent method or otherwise demonstrate that the visualizations and scores provide reliable, non-obvious insight.
  4. [§4.1.1 and Appendix] The experimental setup is not reproducible: the manuscript does not report the train/validation/test split sizes or random seeds, how missing values in MonthlyIncome and NumberOfDependents were imputed, whether features were scaled, how the class imbalance was handled, how the decision threshold was selected, or how many independent runs the reported metrics are based on. The appendix hyperparameter study also does not clarify whether the tables report single-run results; the text says depth and width are studied, but only grid, optimizer, and learning rate are actually varied. These omissions prevent the reader from verifying the reported AUC and F1 values.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §3.2] The model name is repeatedly written 'Credit Dedault Predict' instead of 'Credit Default Predict'; this typo appears in the abstract and throughout the paper.
  2. [§2.1] The sentence 'In addition, Reinforcement Learning (DL), Recurrent Neural Network (RNN)' appears to be a typo; the intended entry is likely 'Deep Learning (DL)'.
  3. [§4.3.1 and §4.3.2] There are broken cross-references: 'Figure ??' appears in both Sections 4.3.1 and 4.3.2, and the feature index list in Section 4.3.1 is not properly presented as a numbered list.
  4. [§3.1] The mathematical formulas are typeset incorrectly (e.g., '2n+1X' and 'Pn p=1') and should be replaced with proper display math for the Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem and the KAN layer definitions.
  5. [Appendix] The hyperparameter sensitivity section claims to study the effect of width and depth, but no experiments varying width or depth are reported; the experiments only vary grid, optimizer, and learning rate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; cross-paper baselines raise validity concerns but do not make the prediction equivalent to its input.

full rationale

The manuscript is an applied machine-learning report rather than a formal derivation. The only quantitative predictions are the ROC_AUC and F1 values in Table 1, obtained by training KACDP_OP and KACDP_OI on GMSC. These numbers are not constructed from the baseline numbers: Section 4.2 states that the Logistic Regression, XGBoost, and SVM rows were 'directly cited' from Han et al. [31], and Section 4.1.1 says preprocessing and feature engineering are 'based on [31]'. This is an explicit admission that the baseline metrics were not re-measured under the authors' own split and preprocessing protocol. This is a genuine comparison-validity limitation, especially because the AUC gaps are small, but it is not circularity: the KACDP scores are independently computed from the data and are not algebraically or definitionally forced to equal the Han et al. numbers. No equation or parameter in the paper is fitted to those baselines, and the superiority claim is an empirical claim about measured numbers, not a tautology. The interpretability analysis uses feature attribution scores from KAN 2.0 [34]; this is an application of an external method by different authors, not a self-citation chain, and it does not make the interpretability result equivalent to its own input. No load-bearing step in the paper reduces by construction to its inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim of outperformance depends on the comparability of borrowed baseline numbers (an ad hoc assumption), while the interpretability claim depends on the KAN attribution method's validity. The remaining assumptions are standard for this type of empirical study.

free parameters (5)
  • grid (B-spline grid size) = 30 (KACDP_OP), 80 (KACDP_OI)
    Controls the number of B-spline intervals; chosen after validation experiments, and the appendix shows AUC varies from 0.8498 to 0.8640 as grid ranges from 3 to 80.
  • k (B-spline order) = 4
    Spline approximation order; set to 4 without justification beyond 'reasonable settings'.
  • learning rate = 0.1
    Chosen to balance convergence speed and stability; appendix shows AUC drops to 0.3788 at lr=0.001.
  • width (network architecture) = [10,4,1] for KACDP_OP, [10,1] for KACDP_OI
    Selected after 'multiple rounds of experiments' on a validation set; the four hidden neurons are said to balance capacity and overfitting.
  • training steps = not reported for main models
    The main-model training steps are not given; sensitivity tables use 100 or 200 steps, so the central results are not fully specified.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Kolmogorov-Arnold representation theorem: any continuous multivariate function can be written as a finite sum of univariate functions.
    Section 3.1 uses this theorem as the theoretical basis for KANs.
  • domain assumption The GMSC dataset is a representative and reliable sample of borrower credit information.
    Section 4.1.1 states the dataset is widely used and 'has high representativeness and reliability' citing [31], [32], [33].
  • ad hoc to paper The baseline scores from Han et al. [31] are directly comparable to KACDP's scores despite being generated in a different study.
    Section 4.2 asserts the comparison is 'relatively fair and reliable' solely because the same dataset was used; no same-protocol comparison is shown.
  • domain assumption Feature attribution scores computed by the KAN model reflect the true importance of features in the model's decisions.
    Section 4.3.1 uses KAN attribution scores as evidence of interpretability without external validation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of KACDP: A Highly Interpretable Credit Default Prediction Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KN7IJYSU

@misc{pith2026241117783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: KACDP: A Highly Interpretable Credit Default Prediction Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KN7IJYSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17783}
}
read the original abstract

In the field of finance, the prediction of individual credit default is of vital importance. However, existing methods face problems such as insufficient interpretability and transparency as well as limited performance when dealing with high-dimensional and nonlinear data. To address these issues, this paper introduces a method based on Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KANs). KANs is a new type of neural network architecture with learnable activation functions and no linear weights, which has potential advantages in handling complex multi-dimensional data. Specifically, this paper applies KANs to the field of individual credit risk prediction for the first time and constructs the Kolmogorov-Arnold Credit Default Predict (KACDP) model. Experiments show that the KACDP model outperforms mainstream credit default prediction models in performance metrics (ROC_AUC and F1 values). Meanwhile, through methods such as feature attribution scores and visualization of the model structure, the model's decision-making process and the importance of different features are clearly demonstrated, providing transparent and interpretable decision-making basis for financial institutions and meeting the industry's strict requirements for model interpretability. In conclusion, the KACDP model constructed in this paper exhibits excellent predictive performance and satisfactory interpretability in individual credit risk prediction, providing an effective way to address the limitations of existing methods and offering a new and practical credit risk prediction tool for financial institutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17783 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Structure diagrams of the KACDP_OP and KACDP_OI models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Feature importance analysis of the KACDP_OP model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Structure diagram and decision path diagram of the KACDP_OI model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Loss vs. Steps training graph [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Explainable Artificial Intelligence Credit Risk Assessment using Machine Learning

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    LightGBM achieves the highest accuracy (90.07%) and ROC AUC (0.7203) for credit default prediction in a comparison of three ensembles with SHAP/LIME explainability on a public lending dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [31]

    Personal credit default prediction fusion frame- work based on self-attention and cross-network algorithms

    Di Han, Wei Guo, Yi Chen, Bocheng Wang, and Wenting Li. Personal credit default prediction fusion frame- work based on self-attention and cross-network algorithms. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 133:107977, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [34]

    Kan 2.0: Kolmogorov-arnold networks meet science, 2024

    Ziming Liu, Pingchuan Ma, Yixuan Wang, Wojciech Matusik, and Max Tegmark. Kan 2.0: Kolmogorov-arnold networks meet science, 2024. appendix Hyperparameter Sensitivity Analysis The hyperparameters of the model have a significant impact on its performance. In this subsection, while keeping other hyperparameters constant, we will study the influence of the gr...

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    An explainable xgboost model improved by smote-enn technique for maize lodging detection based on multi-source unmanned aerial vehicle images

    Liang Han, Guijun Yang, Xiaodong Yang, Xiaoyu Song, Bo Xu, Zhenhai Li, Jintao Wu, Hao Yang, and Jianwei Wu. An explainable xgboost model improved by smote-enn technique for maize lodging detection based on multi-source unmanned aerial vehicle images. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 194:106804, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Bastos and Sara M

    João A. Bastos and Sara M. Matos. Explainable models of credit losses. European Journal of Operational Research, 301(1):386–394, 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    From artificial intelligence to explainable artificial intelligence in industry 4.0: a survey on what, how, and where

    Imran Ahmed, Gwanggil Jeon, and Francesco Piccialli. From artificial intelligence to explainable artificial intelligence in industry 4.0: a survey on what, how, and where. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 18(8):5031–5042, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [4]

    Machine learning for credit scoring: Improving logistic regression with non-linear decision-tree effects

    Elena Dumitrescu, Sullivan Hué, Christophe Hurlin, and Sessi Tokpavi. Machine learning for credit scoring: Improving logistic regression with non-linear decision-tree effects. European Journal of Operational Research, 297(3):1178–1192, March 2022

    work page 2022

  7. [5]

    Risk assessment in social lending via random forests

    Milad Malekipirbazari and Vural Aksakalli. Risk assessment in social lending via random forests. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(10):4621–4631, June 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    Support vector machines for default prediction of SMEs based on technology credit

    Hong Sik Kim and So Young Sohn. Support vector machines for default prediction of SMEs based on technology credit. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(3):838–846, March 2010

    work page 2010

Show all 34 references
  1. [7]

    Machine learning and credit ratings prediction in the age of fourth industrial revolution

    Jing-Ping Li, Nawazish Mirza, Birjees Rahat, and Deping Xiong. Machine learning and credit ratings prediction in the age of fourth industrial revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 161:120309, December 2020

    2020

  2. [8]

    Financial system modeling using deep neural networks (dnns) for effective risk assessment and prediction

    Jing Duan. Financial system modeling using deep neural networks (dnns) for effective risk assessment and prediction. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 356(8):4716–4731, 2019

    2019

  3. [9]

    E.T.-RNN: Applying Deep Learning to Credit Loan Applications

    Dmitrii Babaev, Maxim Savchenko, Alexander Tuzhilin, and Dmitrii Umerenkov. E.T.-RNN: Applying Deep Learning to Credit Loan Applications. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2183–2190, Anchorage AK USA, Jul...

    2019

  4. [10]

    GLocalX - From Local to Global Explanations of Black Box AI Models

    Mattia Setzu, Riccardo Guidotti, Anna Monreale, Franco Turini, Dino Pedreschi, and Fosca Giannotti. GLocalX - From Local to Global Explanations of Black Box AI Models. Artificial Intelligence, 294:103457, May 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Hou, and Max Tegmark

    Ziming Liu, Yixuan Wang, Sachin Vaidya, Fabian Ruehle, James Halverson, Marin Soljaˇci´c, Thomas Y . Hou, and Max Tegmark. Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    2024

  6. [12]

    Abdou, Shatarupa Mitra, John Fry, and Ahmed A

    Hussein A. Abdou, Shatarupa Mitra, John Fry, and Ahmed A. Elamer. Would two-stage scoring models alleviate bank exposure to bad debt? Expert Systems with Applications, 128:1–13, August 2019

    2019

  7. [13]

    The debt rating for small enterprises based on probit regression

    Guotai Chi, Yajing Zhong, and Baofeng Shi. The debt rating for small enterprises based on probit regression. Journal of Management Sciences in China, 19(06):136–156, 2016

    2016

  8. [14]

    Credit risk classification: an integrated predictive accuracy algorithm using artificial and deep neural networks

    Mohammad Mahbobi, Salman Kimiagari, and Marriappan Vasudevan. Credit risk classification: an integrated predictive accuracy algorithm using artificial and deep neural networks. Annals of Operations Research, 330(1- 2):609–637, November 2023

    2023

  9. [15]

    Mancisidor, Michael Kampffmeyer, Kjersti Aas, and Robert Jenssen

    Rogelio A. Mancisidor, Michael Kampffmeyer, Kjersti Aas, and Robert Jenssen. Deep generative models for reject inference in credit scoring. Knowledge-Based Systems, 196:105758, May 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    Support vector regression for loss given default modelling

    Xiao Yao, Jonathan Crook, and Galina Andreeva. Support vector regression for loss given default modelling. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(2):528–538, January 2015

    2015

  11. [17]

    Borrowers’ credit quality scoring model and applications, with default discriminant analysis based on the extreme learning machine

    Professor Sulin Pang, Xianyan Hou, and Lianhu Xia. Borrowers’ credit quality scoring model and applications, with default discriminant analysis based on the extreme learning machine. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 165:120462, April 2021. 10 A PREPRINT - NOVEMBER 28, 2024

    2021

  12. [18]

    Lim, Yingchi Qu, Xingzhi Li, and Du Ni

    Mei Yang, Ming K. Lim, Yingchi Qu, Xingzhi Li, and Du Ni. Deep neural networks with L1 and L2 regularization for high dimensional corporate credit risk prediction. Expert Systems with Applications, 213:118873, March 2023

    2023

  13. [19]

    Graph convolutional network-based credit default prediction utilizing three types of virtual distances among borrowers

    Jong Wook Lee, Won Kyung Lee, and So Young Sohn. Graph convolutional network-based credit default prediction utilizing three types of virtual distances among borrowers. Expert Systems with Applications, 168:114411, April 2021

    2021

  14. [20]

    Feng Shen, Xingchao Zhao, Gang Kou, and Fawaz E. Alsaadi. A new deep learning ensemble credit risk evaluation model with an improved synthetic minority oversampling technique. Applied Soft Computing, 98:106852, January 2021

    2021

  15. [21]

    Efficient fraud detection using deep boosting decision trees

    Biao Xu, Yao Wang, Xiuwu Liao, and Kaidong Wang. Efficient fraud detection using deep boosting decision trees. Decision Support Systems, 175:114037, December 2023

    2023

  16. [22]

    Explainability of machine learning models for bankruptcy prediction

    Min Sue Park, Hwijae Son, Chongseok Hyun, and Hyung Ju Hwang. Explainability of machine learning models for bankruptcy prediction. IEEE Access, 9:124887–124899, 2021

    2021

  17. [23]

    Analyzing false positives in bankruptcy prediction with explainable ai

    Akshat Mahajan and Kaushal Kumar Shukla. Analyzing false positives in bankruptcy prediction with explainable ai. In 2023 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Applications (ICAIA) Alliance Technology Conference (ATCON-1), pages 1–5, 2023

    2023

  18. [24]

    Kagnns: Kolmogorov-arnold networks meet graph learning, 2024

    Roman Bresson, Giannis Nikolentzos, George Panagopoulos, Michail Chatzianastasis, Jun Pang, and Michalis Vazirgiannis. Kagnns: Kolmogorov-arnold networks meet graph learning, 2024

    2024

  19. [25]

    Kolmogorov arnold informed neural network: A physics-informed deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems based on kolmogorov arnold networks, 2024

    Yizheng Wang, Jia Sun, Jinshuai Bai, Cosmin Anitescu, Mohammad Sadegh Eshaghi, Xiaoying Zhuang, Timon Rabczuk, and Yinghua Liu. Kolmogorov arnold informed neural network: A physics-informed deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems based on kolmogorov ar...

    2024

  20. [26]

    ikan: Global incremental learning with kan for human activity recognition across heterogeneous datasets, 2024

    Mengxi Liu, Sizhen Bian, Bo Zhou, and Paul Lukowicz. ikan: Global incremental learning with kan for human activity recognition across heterogeneous datasets, 2024

    2024

  21. [27]

    Endowing interpretability for neural cognitive diagnosis by efficient kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    Shangshang Yang, Linrui Qin, and Xiaoshan Yu. Endowing interpretability for neural cognitive diagnosis by efficient kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    2024

  22. [28]

    Kanop: A data-efficient option pricing model using kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    Rushikesh Handal, Kazuki Matoya, Yunzhuo Wang, and Masanori Hirano. Kanop: A data-efficient option pricing model using kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    2024

  23. [29]

    Sckansformer: Fine-grained classification of bone marrow cells via kansformer backbone and hierarchical attention mechanisms, 2024

    Yifei Chen, Zhu Zhu, Shenghao Zhu, Linwei Qiu, Binfeng Zou, Fan Jia, Yunpeng Zhu, Chenyan Zhang, Zhaojie Fang, Feiwei Qin, Jin Fan, Changmiao Wang, Yu Gao, and Gang Yu. Sckansformer: Fine-grained classification of bone marrow cells via kansformer backbone and hierarchical atte...

    2024

  24. [30]

    Convolutional kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    Alexander Dylan Bodner, Antonio Santiago Tepsich, Jack Natan Spolski, and Santiago Pourteau. Convolutional kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2024

    2024

  25. [32]

    A hybrid evolutionary under-sampling method for handling the class imbalance problem with overlap in credit classification

    Ping Gong, Junguang Gao, and Li Wang. A hybrid evolutionary under-sampling method for handling the class imbalance problem with overlap in credit classification. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 31(6):728–752, 2022

    2022

  26. [33]

    Credit card fraud detection: A hybrid of pso and k-means clustering unsupervised approach

    Nityanand Sharma and Vivek Ranjan. Credit card fraud detection: A hybrid of pso and k-means clustering unsupervised approach. In 2023 13th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), pages 445–450. IEEE, 2023

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.