MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900694066 · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2881689

Stock Prediction via Sentimental Transfer Learning

2018· article· en· W2900694066 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsDouglas College
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesEducation University of Hong KongNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsStock (firearms)Computer scienceVotingTransfer of learningEconometricsSocial mediaStock priceSentiment analysisData sourceData miningArtificial intelligenceEconomicsWorld Wide WebPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stock prediction is always an attractive problem. With the expansion of information sources, news-driven stock prediction based on sentiments of social media, such as sentiment polarities in financial news, becomes more and more popular. However, the distributions of news articles among different stocks are skewed, which makes stocks with few news have few training samples for their prediction models, and thus leads to low prediction accuracy in the stock predictions. To address this problem, we propose sentimental transfer learning, which transfers sentimental information learned from news-rich stocks (source) to the news-poor ones (target), and prediction performances of the later ones are, therefore, improved. In this approach, the financial news articles of both the source and target stocks are first mapped into the same feature space that is constructed by sentiment dimensions. Second, we develop three different transfer principles in order to explore different transfer scenarios: 1) the source and target stocks’ historical price time series are highly correlated; 2) the source and target stocks are in the same sector and the former is the most news-rich one in the sector; and 3) the source stock has the highest prediction performance in validation data set. Third, a majority voting mechanism is designed based on the principles. The voting mechanism is to select the most proper source stock from the candidate stocks that are generated by different principles. Stock predictions are finally made based on the prediction models trained on the selected stocks. Experiments are conducted based on the data of Hong Kong Stock Exchange stocks from 2003 to 2008. The empirical results show that sentiment transfer learning can improve the prediction performance of the target stocks, and the performances are better and more stable with the source stocks selected by the voting mechanism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it