From Text Representation to Financial Market Prediction: A Literature Review
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
News dissemination in social media causes fluctuations in financial markets. (Scope) Recent advanced methods in deep learning-based natural language processing have shown promising results in financial market analysis. However, understanding how to leverage large amounts of textual data alongside financial market information is important for the investors’ behavior analysis. In this study, we review over 150 publications in the field of behavioral finance that jointly investigated natural language processing (NLP) approaches and a market data analysis for financial decision support. This work differs from other reviews by focusing on applied publications in computer science and artificial intelligence that contributed to a heterogeneous information fusion for the investors’ behavior analysis. (Goal) We study various text representation methods, sentiment analysis, and information retrieval methods from heterogeneous data sources. (Findings) We present current and future research directions in text mining and deep learning for correlation analysis, forecasting, and recommendation systems in financial markets, such as stocks, cryptocurrencies, and Forex (Foreign Exchange Market).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it