← Back to all news
arXiv Machine Learning By Vivek Batra, Kristin Chen, Sanjiv Das, Samuel Judge, Harshad Khadilkar, Sukrit Mittal, Amir Nasrollahzadeh, Daniel Ostrov, Jacob Sisk

Converting Expert Deliberation into Financial Signals Through A Context-Aware NLP Pipeline

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Related stories

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 18

Evaluating Financial Sentiment in the Age of AI

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
llmsfine-tuning
More like this →
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 11

Same Day, Same Story; One Day Ahead, a Different Signal: The Dual Validity of Financial Sentiment

The study examines whether financial sentiment tools that are validated against human labels also reliably predict market outcomes. Using a large corpus of securities class action messages linked to abnormal stock returns, the authors compare five sentiment instruments—VADER, Loughran‑McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter‑RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator—within a single pipeline. Results show that the alignment between human agreement and sentiment scores varies with sampling strategy and time horizon: conventional sampling favors same‑day associations, while fixed‑n panels yield similar correlations for both same‑day and one‑day‑ahead predictions, yet overall predictive rankings remain weak.

By AS Aravinthkakshan, Laven Srivastava, Harsh Nandwani
llmsnlpbenchmarks
More like this →