Assessing Look-Ahead Bias in Stock Return Predictions Generated By GPT Sentiment Analysis

Paul Glasserman, Caden Lin
{"title":"Assessing Look-Ahead Bias in Stock Return Predictions Generated By GPT Sentiment Analysis","authors":"Paul Glasserman, Caden Lin","doi":"arxiv-2309.17322","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, can extract profitable\ntrading signals from the sentiment in news text. However, backtesting such\nstrategies poses a challenge because LLMs are trained on many years of data,\nand backtesting produces biased results if the training and backtesting periods\noverlap. This bias can take two forms: a look-ahead bias, in which the LLM may\nhave specific knowledge of the stock returns that followed a news article, and\na distraction effect, in which general knowledge of the companies named\ninterferes with the measurement of a text's sentiment. We investigate these\nsources of bias through trading strategies driven by the sentiment of financial\nnews headlines. We compare trading performance based on the original headlines\nwith de-biased strategies in which we remove the relevant company's identifiers\nfrom the text. In-sample (within the LLM training window), we find,\nsurprisingly, that the anonymized headlines outperform, indicating that the\ndistraction effect has a greater impact than look-ahead bias. This tendency is\nparticularly strong for larger companies--companies about which we expect an\nLLM to have greater general knowledge. Out-of-sample, look-ahead bias is not a\nconcern but distraction remains possible. Our proposed anonymization procedure\nis therefore potentially useful in out-of-sample implementation, as well as for\nde-biased backtesting.","PeriodicalId":501372,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - QuantFin - General Finance","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - QuantFin - General Finance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2309.17322","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

Large language models (LLMs), including ChatGPT, can extract profitable trading signals from the sentiment in news text. However, backtesting such strategies poses a challenge because LLMs are trained on many years of data, and backtesting produces biased results if the training and backtesting periods overlap. This bias can take two forms: a look-ahead bias, in which the LLM may have specific knowledge of the stock returns that followed a news article, and a distraction effect, in which general knowledge of the companies named interferes with the measurement of a text's sentiment. We investigate these sources of bias through trading strategies driven by the sentiment of financial news headlines. We compare trading performance based on the original headlines with de-biased strategies in which we remove the relevant company's identifiers from the text. In-sample (within the LLM training window), we find, surprisingly, that the anonymized headlines outperform, indicating that the distraction effect has a greater impact than look-ahead bias. This tendency is particularly strong for larger companies--companies about which we expect an LLM to have greater general knowledge. Out-of-sample, look-ahead bias is not a concern but distraction remains possible. Our proposed anonymization procedure is therefore potentially useful in out-of-sample implementation, as well as for de-biased backtesting.
GPT情绪分析在股票收益预测中的预估偏差
包括ChatGPT在内的大型语言模型(llm)可以从新闻文本的情绪中提取有利可图的交易信号。然而,回测这种策略带来了挑战,因为法学硕士是在多年的数据上训练的,如果训练和回测周期重叠,回测会产生有偏差的结果。这种偏见可以有两种形式:一种是前瞻性偏见,法学硕士可能对一篇新闻文章之后的股票回报有特定的了解;另一种是分心效应,对所提到公司的一般了解会干扰对文章情绪的衡量。我们通过金融新闻标题情绪驱动的交易策略来调查这些偏见的来源。我们将基于原始标题的交易表现与去偏见策略进行比较,其中我们从文本中删除了相关公司的标识符。在样本内(在法学硕士训练窗口内),我们发现,令人惊讶的是,匿名标题表现得更好,这表明分心效应比前视偏见有更大的影响。这种趋势在大公司中尤为明显——我们希望llm对这些公司有更广泛的了解。样本外、前视偏差不是问题,但分心仍然是可能的。因此,我们提出的匿名化程序在样本外实现以及forde-biased回溯测试中可能是有用的。
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
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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