Financial sentiment analysis: Classic methods vs. deep learning models

Pub Date : 2023-11-20 DOI:10.3233/idt-230478
Aikaterini Karanikola, Gregory Davrazos, Charalampos M. Liapis, Sotiris Kotsiantis
{"title":"Financial sentiment analysis: Classic methods vs. deep learning models","authors":"Aikaterini Karanikola, Gregory Davrazos, Charalampos M. Liapis, Sotiris Kotsiantis","doi":"10.3233/idt-230478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sentiment Analysis, also known as Opinion Mining, gained prominence in the early 2000s alongside the emergence of internet forums, blogs, and social media platforms. Researchers and businesses recognized the imperative to automate the extraction of valuable insights from the vast pool of textual data generated online. Its utility in the business domain is undeniable, offering actionable insights into customer opinions and attitudes, empowering data-driven decisions that enhance products, services, and customer satisfaction. The expansion of Sentiment Analysis into the financial sector came as a direct consequence, prompting the adaptation of powerful Natural Language Processing models to these contexts. In this study, we rigorously test numerous classical Machine Learning classification algorithms and ensembles against five contemporary Deep Learning Pre-Trained models, like BERT, RoBERTa, and three variants of FinBERT. However, its aim extends beyond evaluating the performance of modern methods, especially those designed for financial tasks, to a comparison of them with classical ones. We also explore how different text representation and data augmentation techniques impact classification outcomes when classical methods are employed. The study yields a wealth of intriguing results, which are thoroughly discussed.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/idt-230478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sentiment Analysis, also known as Opinion Mining, gained prominence in the early 2000s alongside the emergence of internet forums, blogs, and social media platforms. Researchers and businesses recognized the imperative to automate the extraction of valuable insights from the vast pool of textual data generated online. Its utility in the business domain is undeniable, offering actionable insights into customer opinions and attitudes, empowering data-driven decisions that enhance products, services, and customer satisfaction. The expansion of Sentiment Analysis into the financial sector came as a direct consequence, prompting the adaptation of powerful Natural Language Processing models to these contexts. In this study, we rigorously test numerous classical Machine Learning classification algorithms and ensembles against five contemporary Deep Learning Pre-Trained models, like BERT, RoBERTa, and three variants of FinBERT. However, its aim extends beyond evaluating the performance of modern methods, especially those designed for financial tasks, to a comparison of them with classical ones. We also explore how different text representation and data augmentation techniques impact classification outcomes when classical methods are employed. The study yields a wealth of intriguing results, which are thoroughly discussed.
分享
查看原文
金融情绪分析:经典方法vs.深度学习模型
情感分析,也被称为意见挖掘,在21世纪初随着互联网论坛、博客和社交媒体平台的出现而变得突出。研究人员和企业认识到,从在线生成的大量文本数据中自动提取有价值的见解是势在必行的。它在业务领域的效用是不可否认的,它提供了对客户意见和态度的可操作的见解,授权数据驱动的决策,从而增强产品、服务和客户满意度。情绪分析扩展到金融领域是一个直接的结果,促使强大的自然语言处理模型适应这些环境。在这项研究中,我们严格测试了许多经典的机器学习分类算法和集成,以对抗五种当代深度学习预训练模型,如BERT, RoBERTa和FinBERT的三个变体。然而,它的目的超出了评价现代方法,特别是那些为财务任务设计的方法的性能,而是将它们与经典方法进行比较。我们还探讨了当使用经典方法时,不同的文本表示和数据增强技术如何影响分类结果。这项研究产生了大量有趣的结果,并进行了深入的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信