Predicting Stock Price Movement with LLM-Enhanced Tweet Emotion Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately predicting short-term stock price movement remains a challenging task due to the market's inherent volatility and sensitivity to investor sentiment. This paper discusses a deep learning framework that integrates emotion features extracted from tweet data with historical stock price information to forecast significant price changes on the following day. We utilize Meta's Llama 3.1-8B-Instruct model to preprocess tweet data, thereby enhancing the quality of emotion features derived from three emotion analysis approaches: a transformer-based DistilRoBERTa classifier from the Hugging Face library and two lexicon-based methods using National Research Council Canada (NRC) resources. These features are combined with previous-day stock price data to train a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model. Experimental results on TSLA, AAPL, and AMZN stocks show that all three emotion analysis methods improve the average accuracy for predicting significant price movements, compared to the baseline model using only historical stock prices, which yields an accuracy of 13.5%. The DistilRoBERTa-based stock prediction model achieves the best performance, with accuracy rising from 23.6% to 38.5% when using LLaMA-enhanced emotion analysis. These results demonstrate that using large language models to preprocess tweet content enhances the effectiveness of emotion analysis which in turn improves the accuracy of predicting significant stock price movements.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".