← Back to all news
arXiv Machine Learning By Chenhao Xue, Raslen Guesmi, Siwei Feng, Yucheng Gong, Jacob Xavier Sundram, Jordan Pang, Lan Wang, Julian Kaljuvee

Temporal Leakage in Financial News NLP: A Multi-Architecture Audit with a Regime-Specific M&A Signal

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The paper audits the impact of temporal leakage on financial-news direction prediction across 49,799 articles and 16 feature-model combinations, including TF‑IDF, MiniLM, FinBERT, and fine‑tuned RoBERTa‑large / DeBERTa‑v3‑large, as well as zero/few‑shot and LoRA probes of Llama‑3 and Qwen2.5. Random train‑test splits inflate MCC scores by 1.1× to 6.5×, with larger models and richer features showing greater gains, while end‑to‑end FinBERT fine‑tuning actually increases the gap. Only the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) category shows a positive locked‑test signal under near‑temporal chronological evaluation, with the signal localized to 2024‑2025 European‑tilted M&A semantics and not transferring to a 2009‑2020 U.S. corpus.

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 Computation and Language
6d ago

PALM: Point-in-Time Adaptation for Financial Language Models

arXiv:2609.30316v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language models used in financial backtests suffer from look-ahead bias, as a model trained on text published after the study period has already obse...

By Seunghan Lee, Jun Seo, Jaehoon Lee, Junhyeok Kang, Sangjun Han, Sungdong Yoo, Minjae Kim, Tae Yoon Lim, Dongwan Kang, Hwanil Choi, Soonyoung Lee, Wonbin Ahn
llmssafety
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 25

MemGuard-Alpha: Limits of Membership Inference for Detecting and Filtering Memorization-Contaminated Signals in LLM-Based Financial Forecasting

MemGuard-Alpha evaluates whether membership inference attacks (MIA) can detect memorization in large language models (LLMs) used for financial alpha signals. The study combines five MIA methods with a temporal proximity feature and a cross-model disagreement metric, then audits them across seven LLMs, 50 S&P 100 stocks, and 299,600 prompt-model pairs. Findings show that temporal proximity alone perfectly predicts in-sample status, MIA discriminative power largely stems from model scale differences, and filtering based on contamination scores does not improve risk-adjusted performance once transaction costs are considered.

By Anisha Roy, Dip Roy
llms
More like this →