4.6 Article

A Multi-Method Survey on the Use of Sentiment Analysis in Multivariate Financial Time Series Forecasting

期刊

ENTROPY
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/e23121603

关键词

time series forecasting; machine learning; financial time series; sentiment analysis; FinBERT; multivariate; multistep; regression; Twitter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper investigates the use of sentiment analysis in social network data and its application in financial data prediction. The study found that specific sentiment setups can improve predictability in long-term forecasts, while long short-term memory architectures universally perform the best in various scenarios.
In practice, time series forecasting involves the creation of models that generalize data from past values and produce future predictions. Moreover, regarding financial time series forecasting, it can be assumed that the procedure involves phenomena partly shaped by the social environment. Thus, the present work is concerned with the study of the use of sentiment analysis methods in data extracted from social networks and their utilization in multivariate prediction architectures that involve financial data. Through an extensive experimental process, 22 different input setups using such extracted information were tested, over a total of 16 different datasets, under the schemes of 27 different algorithms. The comparisons were structured under two case studies. The first concerns possible improvements in the performance of the forecasts in light of the use of sentiment analysis systems in time series forecasting. The second, having as a framework all the possible versions of the above configuration, concerns the selection of the methods that perform best. The results, as presented by various illustrations, indicate, on the one hand, the conditional improvement of predictability after the use of specific sentiment setups in long-term forecasts and, on the other, a universal predominance of long short-term memory architectures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据