The paper examines whether human agreement and return association can be used interchangeably as criteria for validating sentiment tools in financial NLP. Using a large corpus of securities class action messages linked to abnormal stock returns, the authors compare five sentiment instruments and find that the relationship between human agreement and predictive validity varies with sampling conventions and score representations. They conclude that benchmark agreement establishes semantic validity but does not guarantee predictive rankings, and that message volume in a spam‑heavy conversation does not predict market damage or settlement size.
By AS Aravinthakshan, Laven Srivastava, Harsh Nandwani
arXiv:2607. 14174v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Financial sentiment extraction has largely relied on news text and supervised extraction against return labels alone, leaving 10-K filings -- and volatility, the target risk disclosure is arguably best suited to informing -- comparatively unexplored.
By Sanggyu Sean Choi
The paper evaluates twelve financial sentiment models—including dictionary-based methods, finance-specific transformers, and open-source large language models—using linguistic and economic validity criteria. General-purpose LLMs match finance-specific transformers in classification performance but do not yield stronger economic relationships. While several models correlate with earnings surprises, none shows a significant link to next‑day stock returns, and performance is strongest for large earnings beats or misses.
By Arslan Bisharat, Oudom Hean
arXiv:2604. 27374v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As LLMs become credible readers of earnings calls, investor-relations Q\&A, guidance, and disclosure language, supervised financial NLP benchmarks increasingly function as decision evidence for model selection and deployment.
By Sidi Chang, Peiying Zhu, Yuxiao Chen, Rongdong Chai
arXiv:2608. 04200v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial sentiment classifiers are commonly evaluated against human labels, but strong linguistic performance does not necessarily imply economically useful return predictability.
By Fusheng Luo
arXiv:2608. 09834v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial sentiment analysis converts unstructured financial news into quantitative signals that can support market analysis and decision-making.
By Fan Zhang, Jiaming Li
The paper presents the CDSP (context-conditional deliberation signal pipeline), which transforms investment committee meeting transcripts into structured predictive features. CDSP segments transcripts into topical chunks, assigns asset‑class context labels via a large language model, maps financial keywords to a taxonomy, and adds sentiment polarity and mention frequency features. Using these engineered features on 48 monthly meetings, the best model—combining sentence embeddings with CDSP features—achieves 73% accuracy and a 0.73 F1 score, outperforming a simple stock‑choice baseline, though the improvement is not statistically significant.
By Vivek Batra, Kristin Chen, Sanjiv Das, Samuel Judge, Harshad Khadilkar, Sukrit Mittal, Amir Nasrollahzadeh, Daniel Ostrov, Jacob Sisk
This paper presents an empirical comparison of lexicon-based and Large Language Model (LLM)-based sentiment analysis for extracting market-relevant signals from social media discourse in highly volatile equity markets. Using Reddit data from r/WallStreetBets and focusing on meme stocks (GME, AMC, NOK), we construct time-aligned sentiment indicators and evaluate their relationship with market returns, with particular attention to extreme positive return events in the upper tail of the return distribution.
arXiv:2609.36194v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Extracted sentiment directions can vary across samples even when downstream sentiment classification remains accurate. To evaluate direction reproducib...
By Muhammad Abdullahi Said, Abass Oguntade, Elisha Komolafe, Babangida Sani, Fatima Muhammad Adam, Muhammad Sammani Sani
arXiv:2607. 26368v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways.
By Aman Kumar, Lasitha Vidyaratne, Dipanjan D Ghosh, Arnab Chakrabarti, Ahmed K Farahat
Financial disclosures contain numerical claims, temporal statements, entity references, policy commitments, and risk descriptions that may conflict in qualitatively different ways. Detecting a conflict is only the first step: review workflows may also need to determine its type, since numerical, temporal, referential, factual, and normative inconsistencies require different evidence and downstream checks.
arXiv:2606. 02255v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Human annotation is the empirical foundation of much NLP research, from dataset construction to model evaluation, but papers often leave unclear who produced the annotations and how the annotation process was controlled.
By Maria Kunilovskaya, Gagan Bhatia, Lisa Sophie Albertelli, Yanran Chen, Christian Greisinger, Lotta Kiefer, Christoph Leiter, Subhadeep Roy, Tewodros Achamaleh, Muhammad Arslan Manzoor, Sebastian Pohl, Yufang Hou, Steffen Eger