A Literature Review on Stock Price Prediction by Integrating Social Media Sentiment and Market Indicators Using Deep Learning Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews how social media and news sentiment can be integrated with market indicators to improve stock prediction, with emphasis on deep learning and multimodal fusion. A systematic review is conducted on literature from 2010 to 2024 across IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, Scopus, and arXiv using explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria and a PRISMA-style screening procedure; foundational methods predating this window are also referenced where appropriate. To organize diverse findings, a four-dimensional taxonomy is proposed covering data sources, sentiment construction methods, fusion strategies, and predictive architectures. A comparative synthesis of representative studies yields three consistent patterns: multimodal approaches outperform unimodal (sentiment-only or price-only) baselines; hybrid fusion provides the most reliable balance between robustness and cross-modal interaction; and architectures coupling finance-specific encoders (e.g., FinBERT) with sequence models (e.g., LSTM or transformer-based forecasters) achieve strong error reductions, particularly in high-volatility regimes. Limitations persist—noisy and asynchronously timed sentiment signals, heterogeneous performance across markets and regimes, inconsistent evaluation protocols that hinder comparability, and complex yet opaque models that challenge adoption. In response, a practical evaluation checklist is provided and concrete future directions are outlined, including attention-based alignment, domain-specific pretraining across languages/markets, reinforcement learning for decision-making, cross-market robustness testing, and explainability.
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 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 | 0.020 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".