Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 32 references

Financial Sentiment Analysis: Leveraging Actual and Synthetic Data for Supervised Fine-tuning

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A BERT model fine-tuned on synthetic and concatenated financial text beats FinBERT on the financial phrasebank benchmark.

desk verdict A plausible but under-specified recipe for squeezing a few F1 points out of FinBERT via synthetic data and concatenation; the central comparison lacks a fixed test split and error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09859 v1 pith:BIQCSFU7 submitted 2024-12-13 cs.LG cs.CL

Abraham Atsiwo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords financialsentimentanalysisdataaugmentationsyntheticBERTfine-tuningphrasebanknext-sentencepredictioncontextwindowparameter-efficient
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that a BERT classifier fine-tuned on financial phrasebank data supplemented with GPT-generated synthetic sentences and with shorter sentences concatenated into longer ones reaches state-of-the-art sentiment classification on that benchmark. It introduces BertNSP-finance, a BERT model further pre-trained for next-sentence prediction on financial news, which is used to stitch short sentences into coherent long texts, and finbert-lc, the sentiment classifier trained on the augmented data. On the 50% agreement split, finbert-lc reports 0.89 accuracy and 0.88 macro F1, ahead of FinBERT's 0.86 and 0.84; on the 100% split it reports 0.97 accuracy and 0.96 F1, matching FinBERT's accuracy and improving F1 by one point. The paper also reports that freezing all but the last few layers leaves performance nearly intact, so a comparable model can be trained with about 15 million trainable parameters instead of 110 million. If the result holds, it would mean scarce labeled financial text can be stretched with synthetic sentences and longer contexts rather than requiring larger curated corpora or larger models.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a two-model pipeline built on BERT. BertNSP-finance is a BERT model further pre-trained on financial news text for next-sentence prediction, deciding whether sentence B follows sentence A; its predictions are used by an algorithm (predict multiple nsp) to accept or reject concatenations of short financial sentences. finbert-lc is the fine-tuned sentiment classifier that consumes the augmented corpus: the original financial phrasebank examples, GPT-generated synthetic financial sentences, and the concatenated long sentences. The concatenation step is what lets the model see longer contexts, raising the maximum token length of the training data from about 82 to 298 while staying below BERT's 512-token limit, and the layer-freezing sweep identifies that roughly the final two layers carry most of the task-specific signal.

What would settle it

Hand-annotate a sample of the concatenated sentences used for training and compare their true polarity with the labels inherited from their components. If agreement with the inherited labels is substantially below the phrasebank's own annotator agreement, concatenation is changing sentiment and the augmentation labels are unreliable; alternatively, benchmark finbert-lc on a long-text financial sentiment corpus with human labels and check whether the accuracy gain over FinBERT persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that finbert-lc, a BERT model fine-tuned on the financial phrasebank training set combined with synthetic sentences produced by a GPT model and with long sentences assembled from consecutive financial sentences, delivers the best accuracy and macro F1 among the models compared on the financial phrasebank test sets. The improvement over FinBERT is largest on the noisier 50% agreement split, where more ambiguous labels make the benchmark harder, and is achieved without increasing model size. The paper attributes the gain to two changes: synthetic data adds training examples, and concatenation extends sentences from a native maximum of about 82 tokens to nearly 300 tokens, using more of BERT's 512-token context window. A companion experiment shows that further pre-training BERT on financial news for next-sentence prediction, BertNSP-finance, reaches much higher accuracy on sentence-pair prediction than vanilla BERT, and that freezing the embedding and lower encoder layers keeps sentiment accuracy above 0.87 while cutting trainable parameters to roughly 15 million.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that stitching two short financial sentences together preserves the sentiment label of the original sentences, so a long sentence formed from a positive and a neutral sentence can honestly be labeled positive; if concatenation shifts the overall polarity, the augmented labels are wrong and the reported gains are suspect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • finbert-lc outperforms FinBERT by three accuracy points and four macro-F1 points on the 50% agreement phrasebank split.
  • On the 100% agreement split, finbert-lc ties FinBERT at 0.97 accuracy and raises macro F1 from 0.95 to 0.96.
  • Freezing layers 1 through 10 preserves 0.88 accuracy and 0.86 F1 with only about 15 million trainable parameters, so fine-tuning for this task does not require updating all 110 million parameters.
  • Further pre-training BERT on financial news for next-sentence prediction yields 0.91 accuracy on sentence-pair prediction, more than the 0.77 and 0.62 of vanilla BERT small and large, supporting the sentence-concatenation pipeline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A controlled ablation that adds synthetic examples without concatenation and concatenated examples without synthetic ones would isolate whether the gain comes from more data, longer context, or the assumption that concatenation preserves labels.
  • If concatenation is verified to preserve sentiment, the same augmentation recipe could transfer to other short-text domains, such as reviews, tweets, and headlines, where native texts underuse the model's context window.
  • The phrasebank test sentences are short, so the model's advantage on long texts is not fully demonstrated by the reported benchmark; evaluation on naturally long financial paragraphs with gold labels would be a stronger test.
  • The layer-freezing results suggest a practical rule of thumb: keep the lower encoder layers frozen during domain fine-tuning and tune only the top layers, though the safe freezing depth likely depends on how different the target domain is from the pre-training corpus.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes two models: BertNSP-finance, a BERT model further pre-trained on a Bloomberg news corpus for next-sentence prediction, and finbert-lc, a BERT model fine-tuned on the Financial PhraseBank augmented with synthetic data and with concatenated longer sentences. The central claim is that finbert-lc achieves state-of-the-art results on the Financial PhraseBank benchmark, with reported accuracy/F1 of 0.89/0.88 at 50% agreement versus FinBERT's 0.86/0.84, and 0.97/0.96 at 100% agreement versus FinBERT's 0.97/0.95. The paper also reports layer-freezing experiments showing that competitive performance can be obtained with fewer trainable parameters.

Significance. If the empirical claims are valid, the paper would provide useful evidence that synthetic data augmentation and longer-context concatenation can improve financial sentiment classification, and that further pre-training on financial NSP data can be beneficial. The paper has several concrete strengths: model weights and code are publicly released, confusion matrices and failure examples are presented, and the layer-freezing analysis addresses parameter efficiency. However, the central SOTA claim is currently supported by an incompletely specified evaluation protocol, and there are unresolved inconsistencies in the description of the synthetic data. The significance of the contribution therefore depends on whether these issues can be resolved; at present the results are suggestive rather than conclusive.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.2, Tables 3 and 4] The evaluation protocol is underspecified. The paper does not state how the Financial PhraseBank data were split into train/validation/test, what random seed was used, or whether the FinBERT baseline was evaluated on exactly the same test instances as finbert-lc. The confusion matrices in Tables 6 and 7 imply test sets of roughly 485 and 226 sentences, but a random 10% split can produce materially different test compositions, and the released FinBERT weights may have been fine-tuned on a different portion of the data. Without a fixed, shared split, the reported 0.89 vs. 0.86 accuracy and 0.88 vs. 0.84 F1 differences are not interpretable as improvements.
  2. [§4.2, Tables 3 and 4] No error bars, confidence intervals, or multiple-seed results are reported anywhere in the paper. The claimed gains over FinBERT are 1 to 3 percentage points on accuracy and F1, which could easily be within run-to-run noise for fine-tuned transformer models. The authors should report means and standard deviations over at least 3 to 5 seeds, or bootstrap confidence intervals, for both finbert-lc and FinBERT on identical splits.
  3. [§3.1, Algorithm 1] The label-preservation assumption for concatenated sentences is not stated or justified. The paper describes generating longer sentences by sequential and random concatenation of short sentences, but it does not specify what sentiment label the concatenated sentence receives, nor does it provide evidence that concatenating, for example, a positive and a neutral sentence yields a sentence whose correct label is positive. If the concatenated label is inherited from one component, the augmented training labels can be systematically wrong, and the reported improvements could partly reflect label noise rather than better use of context. The authors should state the labeling rule and provide a validation experiment or ablation that addresses this concern.
  4. [§3.1 vs. Tables 3 and 4] The synthetic data source is described inconsistently. Section 3.1 says training examples were generated from a 'fine-tuned GPT-3 model,' while the captions of Tables 3 and 4 and the text in Section 4.2 refer to 'GPT-4 generated data.' The paper also gives no details about the generation prompt, any filtering or quality-control steps, or the number of synthetic examples used. This is a load-bearing reproducibility issue because the central claim is that synthetic data augmentation improves performance; the authors should correct the inconsistency and document the generation procedure in full.
  5. [§5, Table 2] The conclusion contains an internal contradiction. Section 5 states that 'Further pretraining of BERT on bloomery data does not improve performance compared to BERT in its natural state,' but Table 2 reports that BertNSP-finance achieves 0.91 accuracy and 0.91 F1 compared with 0.77/0.76 for Vanilla BERT Small and 0.62/0.57 for Vanilla BERT Large. As written, the conclusion contradicts the paper's own experimental results; the authors should clarify what claim they intend to make about the value of further pre-training.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title] The title contains a typo: 'super vised' should be 'supervised.'
  2. [Abstract] The abstract says labeled data are 'scare'; this should be 'scarce.'
  3. [§3.1 and §5] The dataset and company name are spelled inconsistently as both 'Bloombery' and 'Bloomberg'; the correct spelling is 'Bloomberg'.
  4. [§4.4] The sentence 'Table 2 is the confusion matrix of fine-tuned BERT for next sentence prediction' should refer to Table 8, which is the actual NSP confusion matrix.
  5. [§4.4] The text says the model achieved '97% precision for sentences with 100% agreement,' but based on Table 7 the reported value appears to be accuracy (220/226 ≈ 97%).
  6. [Tables 3 and 4] The LSTM baseline descriptions say 'Different configurations are tried... and the configuration with the best result is reported,' but no selection procedure or variance information is given; this should be disclosed to allow the baseline strengths to be assessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical benchmark comparison, not a derivation from fitted constants or a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that finbert-lc, a BERT model fine-tuned on the Financial PhraseBank augmented with synthetic and concatenated sentences, achieves higher accuracy and F1 than FinBERT and LSTM baselines on the same benchmark. This is an empirical comparison against an external, publicly available dataset and a downloaded baseline model. The proposed BertNSP-finance component is further pretrained on Bloomberg news data for next-sentence prediction, which is independent of the sentiment labels used in the final fine-tuning; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The concatenation procedure (Algorithm 1) relies on a label-preservation assumption, but that assumption is a stated modeling choice rather than a circular definition. The paper's self-citations ([2], [3]) are used only for general training details and as a downstream application example; they are not load-bearing for the reported performance. The main weaknesses are methodological—an unspecified train/test split, no error bars, and an underdescribed synthetic-data generation process—but these are reproducibility and validity concerns, not circularity. Because the reported results reduce neither to their own inputs nor to a self-citation chain, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper makes no parameter-free derivation; it reports empirical fine-tuning results. The central comparison depends on standard hyperparameters and on the assumption that augmented and concatenated sentences inherit the labels of their source sentences. No new physical or symbolic entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • learning_rate = 2e-5
    Chosen by hand, standard for BERT fine-tuning; affects all reported metrics.
  • weight_decay = 0.01
    Chosen by hand, standard regularization hyperparameter.
  • dropout_probability = 0.2
    Chosen by hand in Section 3.3.
  • nsp_threshold = 0.5
    Threshold in Algorithm 1 for deciding whether sentenceB follows sentenceA; manually set.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Sentiment polarity is preserved when short financial sentences are concatenated into a longer sentence.
    Long training sentences in Section 3.1 are labeled with the label of the source short sentences. If concatenation changes polarity, the augmented labels are wrong.
  • domain assumption Synthetic sentences generated by GPT-3 or GPT-4 carry the same sentiment distribution and correct labels as human-annotated financial text.
    Section 3.1 adds GPT-generated training examples without validation or human review.
  • domain assumption Human annotations in financial phrasebank are reliable ground truth for sentiment.
    Used as the evaluation benchmark; the paper relies on the original human labels without re-annotation.
  • domain assumption The NSP model BertNSP-finance correctly identifies coherent sentence pairs.
    Algorithm 1 uses BertNSP-finance predictions to validate concatenated sentences; errors propagate into the training data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Financial Sentiment Analysis: Leveraging Actual and Synthetic Data for Supervised Fine-tuning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BIQCSFU7

@misc{pith2026241209859,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Financial Sentiment Analysis: Leveraging Actual and Synthetic Data for Supervised Fine-tuning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BIQCSFU7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09859}
}
abstract

The Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) highlights the essence of financial news in stock price movement. Financial news comes in the form of corporate announcements, news titles, and other forms of digital text. The generation of insights from financial news can be done with sentiment analysis. General-purpose language models are too general for sentiment analysis in finance. Curated labeled data for fine-tuning general-purpose language models are scare, and existing fine-tuned models for sentiment analysis in finance do not capture the maximum context width. We hypothesize that using actual and synthetic data can improve performance. We introduce BertNSP-finance to concatenate shorter financial sentences into longer financial sentences, and finbert-lc to determine sentiment from digital text. The results show improved performance on the accuracy and the f1 score for the financial phrasebank data with $50\%$ and $100\%$ agreement levels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09859 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Token distribution of the financial phrasebank dataset. It can be seen from the histograms that the maximum token count is 82 and the minimum token count is 2 for the original dataset and the maximum is 298 and the minimum is 2 for the concatenated and GPT-3 generated datasets. The BERT model has a maximum token count of 512. Training examples were generated from the fine-tuned GPT-3 model. This supplements the fina… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Token distribution of the concatenated financial phrasebank dataset. Algorithm 1 predict multiple nsp 1: procedure predict multiple nsp(sentences: List[str], concatenate: bool) 2: valid ← True 3: for i ← 0 to |sentences| − 1 do 4: if concatenate then 5: sentenceA ← concatenate sentence(sentences[0 : i+1]) 6: sentenceB ← sentences[i + 1] 7: else 8: sentenceA ← sentences[i] 9: sentenceB ← sentences[i + 1] 10: end if 1… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot of test size vs. accuracy, loss and vs. f1 macro grouped by model type (Vanilla BERT Small, Vanilla BERT Large and BertNSP-finance (PBERT NSP)). Vanilla BERT Large has a precision of 57% for the positive class (isNext) and a recall of 27% for the negative class (notNext). A precision of 57% means that out of all the instances predicted as ”isNext”, ”sentenceB” follows ”sentenceA” 57% of the time. 57% of the ”is… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models

    Dogu Araci. Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063, 2019

    arXiv 1908

  2. [2]

    Instruction Finetuning Foundation Models, Three-Stage Bubble Analysis, and Exam- ining the Size Effect

    Abraham Atsiwo. Instruction Finetuning Foundation Models, Three-Stage Bubble Analysis, and Exam- ining the Size Effect . PhD thesis, University of Nevada, Reno, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Capital asset pricing model with size factor and normalizing by volatility index, 2024

    Abraham Atsiwo and Andrey Sarantsev. Capital asset pricing model with size factor and normalizing by volatility index, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Enriching word vectors with subword information

    Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the association for computational linguistics , 5:135–146, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    A comprehensive study on lexicon based approaches for sentiment analysis

    Venkateswarlu Bonta, Nandhini Kumaresh, and Naulegari Janardhan. A comprehensive study on lexicon based approaches for sentiment analysis. Asian Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 8(S2):1–6, 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13007, 2023

    Haixing Dai, Zhengliang Liu, Wenxiong Liao, Xiaoke Huang, Yihan Cao, Zihao Wu, Lin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Wei Liu, Ninghao Liu, et al. Auggpt: Leveraging chatgpt for text data augmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13007, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    J Devlin, MW Chang, K Lee, and KB Toutanova. Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding in: Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the north american chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers). Minneapolis, MN: Association for Computational Linguist...

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidi- rectional transformers for language understanding, 2019

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidi- rectional transformers for language understanding, 2019

    work page 2019

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining

    Xiaowen Ding, Bing Liu, and Philip S Yu. A holistic lexicon-based approach to opinion mining. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining , pages 231–240, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    The capital asset pricing model: an overview of the theory

    Mona A Elbannan. The capital asset pricing model: an overview of the theory. International Journal of Economics and Finance , 7(1):216–228, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Random walks in stock market prices

    Eugene F Fama. Random walks in stock market prices. Financial analysts journal , 51(1):75–80, 1995

    1995

  4. [12]

    Fully automatic lexicon expansion for domain-oriented senti- ment analysis

    Hiroshi Kanayama and Tetsuya Nasukawa. Fully automatic lexicon expansion for domain-oriented senti- ment analysis. In Proceedings of the 2006 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing, pages 355–363, 2006

    2006

  5. [13]

    Decision support from financial disclosures with deep neural networks and transfer learning

    Mathias Kraus and Stefan Feuerriegel. Decision support from financial disclosures with deep neural networks and transfer learning. Decision Support Systems , 104:38–48, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Fingpt: Democratizing internet-scale data for finan- cial large language models

    Xiao-Yang Liu, Guoxuan Wang, and Daochen Zha. Fingpt: Democratizing internet-scale data for finan- cial large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10485 , 2023. 14 ABRAHAM ATSIWO

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Finsslx: A sentiment analysis model for the financial domain using text simplification

    Macedo Maia, Andr´ e Freitas, and Siegfried Handschuh. Finsslx: A sentiment analysis model for the financial domain using text simplification. In 2018 IEEE 12th International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC) , pages 318–319. IEEE, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts

    Pekka Malo, Ankur Sinha, Pekka Korhonen, Jyrki Wallenius, and Pyry Takala. Good debt or bad debt: Detecting semantic orientations in economic texts. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4):782–796, 2014

    2014

  9. [17]

    Delta tfidf: An improved feature space for sentiment analysis

    Justin Martineau and Tim Finin. Delta tfidf: An improved feature space for sentiment analysis. In proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media , volume 3, pages 258–261, 2009

    2009

  10. [18]

    Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality

    Tomas Mikolov, Ilya Sutskever, Kai Chen, Greg S Corrado, and Jeff Dean. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Advances in neural information processing systems , 26, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Evaluation of sentiment analysis in finance: from lexicons to transformers

    Kostadin Mishev, Ana Gjorgjevikj, Irena Vodenska, Lubomir T Chitkushev, and Dimitar Trajanov. Evaluation of sentiment analysis in finance: from lexicons to transformers. IEEE access , 8:131662– 131682, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Glove: Global vectors for word rep- resentation

    Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D Manning. Glove: Global vectors for word rep- resentation. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP), pages 1532–1543, 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Financial news dataset from bloomberg and reuters

    Xiao Ding Philippe Remy. Financial news dataset from bloomberg and reuters. https://github.com/ philipperemy/financial-news-dataset, 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Improving language under- standing by generative pre-training

    Alec Radford, Karthik Narasimhan, Tim Salimans, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Improving language under- standing by generative pre-training. 2018

    2018

  15. [23]

    An overview of lexicon-based approach for sentiment analysis

    Azeema Sadia, Fariha Khan, and Fatima Bashir. An overview of lexicon-based approach for sentiment analysis. In 2018 3rd International Electrical Engineering Conference (IEEC 2018) , pages 1–6, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    Detecting formal thought disorder by deep contextualized word representations

    Justyna Sarzynska-Wawer, Aleksander Wawer, Aleksandra Pawlak, Julia Szymanowska, Izabela Stefa- niak, Michal Jarkiewicz, and Lukasz Okruszek. Detecting formal thought disorder by deep contextualized word representations. Psychiatry Research, 304:114135, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Big data: Deep learning for financial sentiment analysis

    Sahar Sohangir, Dingding Wang, Anna Pomeranets, and Taghi M Khoshgoftaar. Big data: Deep learning for financial sentiment analysis. Journal of Big Data , 5(1):1–25, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis

    Maite Taboada, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll, and Manfred Stede. Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational linguistics , 37(2):267–307, 2011

    2011

  19. [27]

    Does synthetic data generation of llms help clinical text mining? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04360 , 2023

    Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Xiaoqian Jiang, and Xia Hu. Does synthetic data generation of llms help clinical text mining? arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04360 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timoth´ ee Lacroix, Baptiste Rozi` ere, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Classification of sentiment reviews using n-gram machine learning approach

    Abinash Tripathy, Ankit Agrawal, and Santanu Kumar Rath. Classification of sentiment reviews using n-gram machine learning approach. Expert Systems with Applications , 57:117–126, 2016

    2016

  22. [30]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 30, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance

    Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebastian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17564 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Instruct-fingpt: Financial sentiment analysis by instruction tuning of general-purpose large language models

    Boyu Zhang, Hongyang Yang, and Xiao-Yang Liu. Instruct-fingpt: Financial sentiment analysis by instruction tuning of general-purpose large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.12659 , 2023. Department of Mathematics & Statistics; University of Nevada, Reno Email address ...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.