arXiv AI By AS Aravinthakshan, Laven Srivastava, Harsh Nandwani

Human Agreement and Return Association Are Not Interchangeable Criteria

Read the original on arXiv AI →

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.

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 AI.

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
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Who Annotates in NLP? A Large-scale Assessment of Human Annotation Reporting between 2018 and 2025

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
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 20

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

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