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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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