Sentiment-Driven Statistical Modelling of Stock Returns over Weekends
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
We propose a two-stage statistical learning framework to investigate how financial news headlines posted over weekends affect stock returns. In the first stage, Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques are used to extract sentiment features from news headlines, including FinBERT sentiment scores and Impact Probabilities derived from Logistic Regression models (Binomial, Multinomial, and Bayesian). These Impact Probabilities estimate the likelihood that a given headline influences the stock’s opening price on the following trading day. In the second stage, we predict over-weekend log returns using various sets of covariates: sentiment-based features, traditional financial indicators (e.g., trading volumes, past returns), and headline counts. We evaluate multiple statistical learning algorithms—including Linear Regression, Polynomial Regression, Random Forests, and Support Vector Machines—using cross-validation and two performance metrics. Our framework is demonstrated using financial news from MarketWatch and stock data for Apple Inc. (AAPL) from 2014 to 2023. The results show that incorporating sentiment features, particularly Impact Probabilities, improves predictive accuracy. This approach offers a robust way to quantify and model the influence of qualitative financial information on stock performance, especially in contexts where markets are closed but news continues to develop.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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