MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7124705734 · doi:10.1145/3785706.3785731

A Literature Review on Stock Price Prediction by Integrating Social Media Sentiment and Market Indicators Using Deep Learning Approaches

2025· article· W7124705734 on OpenAlexaff
Fei Gao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningSentiment analysisRobustness (evolution)Social mediaEncoderStock marketPreprocessorStock (firearms)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207