arbiter
JournalsAccount

Data Imputation in Large Datasets: A Comparative Study of PCA and Machine Learning Approaches

Sabuhi Khalili & Helena Chuliá

Computational Economics2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-025-11201-xarticle
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This paper contributes to the financial econometrics literature by providing a systematic comparison of machine learning techniques and principal component analysis (PCA) methods for data imputation in large financial datasets. Missing data is pervasive in empirical finance and economics, and imputation accuracy determines whether the entire dataset can be used in analyses such as modeling credit risk. We introduce a fully linear autoencoder with a loss function tailored to observed values, which performs on par with PCA across various missingness mechanisms while offering greater flexibility. Although random forest-based methods are less accurate in large datasets with a strict factor structure, they demonstrate superior performance in lower-dimensional settings where the primary goal is outcome prediction. This is particularly relevant in applications such as credit default prediction, where identifying risk factors from incomplete borrower data is the main objective. In two such examples, the MissForest random forest technique outperforms others by achieving lower imputation error and higher predictive accuracy.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-025-11201-x

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{sabuhi2026,
  title        = {{Data Imputation in Large Datasets: A Comparative Study of PCA and Machine Learning Approaches}},
  author       = {Sabuhi Khalili & Helena Chuliá},
  journal      = {Computational Economics},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10614-025-11201-x},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Data Imputation in Large Datasets: A Comparative Study of PCA and Machine Learning Approaches

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.