Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 27 references

The paper claims that regime-conditioned adaptive fusion is a necessary design principle for multi-modal financial forecasting, demonstrated by a single learnable gate that upweights Bitcoin social sentiment during volatile market states.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:36 UTC pith:7EB47ORT

load-bearing objection A modest, clearly-written gated-fusion idea whose own tables undercut the 'necessary design principle' claim; worth a serious look but not citable as evidence. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23370 v1 pith:7EB47ORT submitted 2026-07-25 cs.LG cs.CEecon.EMstat.CO

Bitcoin Price Direction Prediction via Regime-Aware Multi-Modal Fusion of Social Sentiment and Technical Features

Muhammad Abdullah Haroon This is my paper
classification cs.LG cs.CEecon.EMstat.CO
keywords Bitcoin price predictionmarket regime detectionmulti-modal fusionsocial sentiment analysisadaptive fusion gateFinBERTBiLSTMhourly forecasting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper sets out to show that when a model fuses social sentiment with technical price features to predict Bitcoin's short-term direction, the fusion weights should change with market volatility. It introduces a regime-aware gate — a single learned scalar inside a sigmoid — that upweights the sentiment branch during volatile regimes and lets price dynamics dominate in stable ones. Evaluated on 14 months of hourly Bitcoin data with Reddit sentiment, the proposed model reports the best probability calibration among the compared models at the 3-hour horizon, and the ablation study indicates that removing the gate or replacing it with static concatenation degrades performance, sharply at the 6-hour horizon. The paper concludes that regime-conditioned adaptive fusion is a necessary design principle for multi-modal financial forecasting.

Core claim

The central claim is that the informativeness of social sentiment relative to price data depends on market regime, and a model that conditions fusion on that regime beats one that does not. The mechanism is a one-parameter gate, w_t = σ(θ_r·r_t), with r_t a binary volatility-regime label and θ_r learned end-to-end. With θ_r learned positive, sentiment is upweighted in volatile hours and price dominates in stable ones. On 1,345 held-out hours the model reports macro-F1 0.5474 (3h) and 0.5513 (6h), with the highest 3-hour AUC (0.5084). Ablations show every component is necessary; replacing adaptive weighting with concatenation collapses 6-hour recall to 0.08 (F1 0.14). The paper concludes that

What carries the argument

Regime-aware adaptive fusion gate: a sigmoid function of a single learnable scalar multiplied by a binary volatility-regime label, w_t = σ(θ_r · r_t). This scalar is the only additional parameter over a static-concatenation baseline; it continuously modulates the relative weight of sentiment and price embeddings before a two-layer feedforward classifier, and it is what carries the argument that sentiment should be trusted in volatile regimes and price in stable ones.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the learned gate scalar θ_r ends up positive, so the sigmoid gate actually upweights sentiment in volatile regimes and keeps equal weighting in stable ones; the paper asserts this is what happens but reports no numerical value, training curve, or regime-conditioned performance breakdown.

What would settle it

Inspect the trained gate parameter θ_r. If it is not positive, the reported gains cannot be credited to regime-conditioned upweighting of sentiment. A second test: randomly permute sentiment features within volatile hours and retrain; the 3-hour AUC advantage should disappear if the gate is genuinely exploiting sentiment content.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Multi-modal financial models that statically concatenate sentiment and price features may be systematically underusing one modality in some market regimes.
  • A single scalar and a volatility median split are sufficient to capture regime-dependent sentiment informativeness, requiring no extra labeled data.
  • At longer horizons (6 hours), the fusion mode becomes the dominant design choice; naive concatenation can collapse predictions entirely.
  • The near-0.50 AUC values should be read as realistic for hourly Bitcoin, making calibration rather than raw accuracy the appropriate benchmark.
  • The sentiment branch contributes more at the 6-hour horizon, suggesting crowd signals persist longer than price-only signals.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: The mechanism's interpretation rests entirely on the sign of θ_r; since the paper never reports the learned value, a natural replication is to check whether it is positive and stable across random seeds.
  • Inference: The text computes the regime threshold over the full dataset (including the test window), while the algorithm description says training set; a strict causal replication should verify which is actually used.
  • Inference: A controlled experiment that shuffles sentiment features only in volatile hours would test whether the gate is genuinely exploiting sentiment content or merely a volatility-correlated artifact.
  • Inference: If the design principle generalizes, the same one-parameter gate should transfer to other assets or daily horizons, since the noise-trader channel is not Bitcoin-specific.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Regime-Aware Multi-Modal Learning (RAML), a dual-branch BiLSTM architecture that fuses OHLCV technical features with Reddit FinBERT sentiment for hourly Bitcoin price-direction prediction. A rolling-volatility median split produces a binary regime label, and a single learnable scalar θ_r feeds a sigmoid gate that supposedly upweights sentiment in volatile regimes and price in stable regimes. The model is compared against price-only, sentiment-only, and static-concatenation baselines on 3-hour and 6-hour horizons, with a three-variant ablation study. The abstract and conclusion claim that RAML achieves the highest F1 on both horizons and that every architectural component is necessary, establishing regime-conditioned adaptive fusion as a necessary design principle for multimodal financial forecasting.

Significance. The paper addresses a genuinely important problem—whether regime-dependent fusion of social sentiment and technical features improves sub-daily cryptocurrency forecasting—and the proposed mechanism is interpretable and parsimonious. If the empirical claims were valid, the work would be a useful contribution to a literature that mostly uses static concatenation. The data-construction pipeline is described in detail, and the authors are commendably candid about the modest absolute performance levels. However, the central empirical claims are contradicted by the paper's own reported tables, the headline effect is statistically indistinguishable from chance, and the mechanism asserted for the gate is neither verified nor, in one place, consistent with the model equations. Because the central 'necessary design principle' claim rests on these unsupported results, the paper's significance as submitted is not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table IV and Sections VI.A, VIII] The conclusion that RAML 'achieved the highest F1 on both horizons' is false by the paper's own numbers. In Table IV, B2 (sentiment-only) has 3h F1 = 0.6579 vs. RAML's 0.5474, and B3 (static concatenation) has 6h F1 = 0.5844 vs. RAML's 0.5513. Likewise, Section VII.A states that 'RAML achieves the best AUC on both horizons,' but Table IV gives RAML 6h AUC = 0.4902, which is below 0.5 and below B3's 0.5253. The only claimed advantage on the primary metric is contradicted by the reported table.
  2. [Table V and Section VI.E] The ablation claim that 'removing any single component uniformly degrades both F1 and AUC' is directly contradicted by Table V. A2 (no regime gate) achieves 3h F1 = 0.6180, which is higher than the full model's 0.5474, and A3 (no fusion weighting) also achieves 0.6136 at 3h. The text dismisses these as 'degenerate high-recall' strategies, but F1 is defined in Section V.C as the primary ranking metric, and no significance test is provided to show the AUC difference (0.5084 vs. 0.4841) is not noise. The assertion that the full model is necessary is therefore not supported by the paper's own primary metric.
  3. [Section IV.E, Eq. (12), and Figure 7] The gating mechanism is unverified and internally inconsistent. Eq. (12) gives w_t = σ(θ_r · r_t). For the stable regime r_t = 0, w_t = σ(0) = 0.5 exactly, regardless of θ_r. Figure 7, however, claims that in stable periods the 'price weight' is approximately 0.8 and sentiment weight 0.2, which would require w_t ≈ 0.2. The paper asserts in Section IV.E that 'in practice, the learned value of θ_r is positive,' but reports no learned value, no training curve, and no regime-conditioned performance breakdown. If θ_r were zero, the gate would reduce to equal weighting; if negative, the claimed mechanism inverts. Without this value, the central interpretation is unsupported.
  4. [Section III.C and Algorithm 1, line 2] There is a data-leakage inconsistency in the regime-label construction. Eq. (7) defines the regime by comparing σ_t to the 'global median computed over the full dataset,' while Algorithm 1 line 2 computes the 'global median volatility threshold from training set.' If the full-dataset median is used, the regime labels for training samples depend on test-set volatility, and the opposite also holds; the reported train/test split is then compromised. If the training-set median is used, the text and figure captions should be corrected. Either way, the current description does not permit a leakage-free replication.
  5. [Tables IV–V and Sections VI.A, VII.C] No confidence intervals, significance tests, or multiple seeds are reported. For a test set of n = 1,345, the standard error of a 0.5 AUC is approximately sqrt(0.25/1345) ≈ 0.0136; the reported 3h AUC of 0.5084 is well within one standard error of chance. The 6h AUC of 0.4902 is below chance. The differences in F1 between models, including the ablation differences, also have no error bars, so the claims of 'measurable improvement' and 'necessary component' are statistically unsubstantiated. Section III.F's statement that 'all reported improvements above these baselines therefore reflect genuine predictive information' is therefore not justified.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C vs. Algorithm 1] The regime threshold is described as 'global median over the full dataset' in Eq. (7) but 'training set' in Algorithm 1. Please decide and state consistently.
  2. [Section VI.A] The sentence 'RAML achieves the highest F1 at 3 hours (0.5474) and 6 hours (0.5513)' is not supported by Table IV and should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 7] The caption's approximate weights (0.8 price, 0.2 sentiment in stable; 0.9 sentiment in volatile) are not derivable from Eq. (12) without reporting θ_r. The figure should be reconciled with the equation or removed.
  4. [Section VII.D] The statement that 'all models struggle primarily with the True Down class' is based on 3h confusion matrices only; the paper does not present 6h confusion matrices, yet the discussion generalizes to both horizons.
  5. [General] No code, random seed, or training curves are provided. Given the small sample and the centrality of the gate behavior, at least the learned θ_r value and seed-averaged results should be included.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the claimed result is an empirical comparison on a held-out test split, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

RAML is trained on a chronological split (Jul 2024–Jun 2025) and evaluated on a disjoint held-out test split (Jul–Sep 2025). The fusion-gate parameter θ_r is fit by backpropagation (Eq. 12, Algorithm 1); it is not set to enforce the asserted regime behavior, and no test-set performance is used to fit it. The ablation study compares independently trained variants on the same held-out test set; its conclusions are empirical claims about that comparison, not equations that reduce to their inputs. Citations to Baker and Wurgler, Tetlock, Ang and Bekaert, and Urquhart are external literature, not self-citations, and are used as motivation and context rather than as load-bearing derivations. The paper does contain serious internal-validity problems: Table IV contradicts the abstract/conclusion's 'highest F1 on both horizons' (B2's 3h F1 0.6579 > RAML 0.5474; B3's 6h F1 0.5844 > RAML 0.5513), and Figure 7's stable-regime price weight ≈0.8 conflicts with Eq. (12), which gives w_t = σ(0) = 0.5 in stable regimes. These are inconsistency/overclaim issues, not circular reasoning. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation chain is used to force a uniqueness conclusion. Accordingly, the circularity pass finds no significant circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or conceptual entities; the 'adaptive gate' is an architectural component. The load-bearing fitted quantities are the gate scalar θ_r, the volatility median threshold, and the hyperparameters. The central mechanism is unverified because θ_r is not reported. The regime label is constructed from the same rolling volatility that defines the gate, which is where the circularity burden sits.

free parameters (3)
  • θ_r (fusion gate scalar) = not reported (text asserts positive)
    Central adaptive parameter in Eq. (12); its learned value and sign are never reported, yet the paper's mechanism depends on it being positive.
  • Volatility regime threshold (median of 24h rolling volatility) = not reported
    Binarizes regimes in Eq. (7); chosen as the median to balance classes, fitted to the data without sensitivity analysis or external validation.
  • Architecture hyperparameters = L=24, d=64, embedding=32, dropout=0.3, epochs=30, lr=1e-3, batch=32, decision threshold=0.5
    Hand-chosen hyperparameters in Table III; no sensitivity analysis or search is reported, so results may depend nontrivially on these choices.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Median-split rolling 24h volatility provides a meaningful stable/volatile regime distinction for sentiment predictability.
    Used in Eq. (7) and Section III-C; no external validation that this threshold captures the regimes relevant to sentiment informativeness.
  • domain assumption Kaggle FinBERT scores, trained from Gemma-agreement labels, are valid hourly sentiment measures.
    Section III-A relies on pre-computed FinBERT scores from a third-party dataset without any validation or error analysis on the aggregated hourly series.
  • domain assumption Inner join of yfinance and Reddit hourly data does not introduce selection bias.
    Section III-A/F; hours with missing Reddit or OHLCV data are dropped, and no analysis of missingness is provided.
  • domain assumption The chronological train/test split makes the test set a genuinely out-of-distribution evaluation.
    Section V-A asserts this, but no domain-shift diagnostics are reported, and the test window is a single short corrective phase.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15677 in / 12826 out tokens · 125452 ms · 2026-07-31T23:36:40.272529+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Bitcoin price prediction on sub-daily timescales is a hard open problem in computational finance. Bitcoin exhibits fat-tailed returns, non-stationary dynamics, and a price discovery process influenced by social discourse on Reddit and Twitter. Conventional approaches fuse OHLCV technical features with sentiment via static concatenation, applying identical fusion weights regardless of market state. This is inconsistent with the behavioural finance literature, which shows that retail sentiment is most predictive during volatile periods and noisy during calm ones. This paper proposes Regime-Aware Multi-Modal Learning (RAML), which conditions fusion of sentiment and price features on a dynamically detected binary market regime. Rolling 24-hour volatility partitions observations into stable and volatile regimes; a learnable sigmoid gate adjusts the weight of the sentiment embedding relative to the price embedding, trusting sentiment more during volatility and price dynamics more during stable phases. The system is evaluated on 3,491 hourly observations (July 2024-September 2025), combining Bitcoin OHLCV data with Reddit /r/Bitcoin FinBERT sentiment. Four models are compared - price-only BiLSTM, sentiment-only classifier, static-concatenation BiLSTM, and RAML - across 3-hour and 6-hour horizons, with an ablation study isolating the sentiment branch, regime detection, and adaptive fusion. RAML achieves macro-F1 of 0.5474 (3h) and 0.5513 (6h), with the highest AUC at 3 hours (0.5084), indicating better calibration. Ablation confirms every component is necessary, and replacing adaptive weighting with concatenation causes recall collapse at 6 hours (F1: 0.14). These results establish regime-conditioned adaptive fusion as a necessary design principle for multi-modal financial forecasting.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23370 by Muhammad Abdullah Haroon.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: End-to-end data construction and feature engineering pipeline. Three heterogeneous sources — yfinance OHLCV, Reddit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Regime distribution in the July–September 2025 test window. 59.4% of hours are classified as volatile (rolling volatility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Reddit /r/Bitcoin hourly FinBERT sentiment (bar) overlaid on BTC closing price (orange line) across the full 14-month [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Bitcoin closing price (dark blue, left axis) and 24-hour rolling volatility (orange, right axis) with volatile-regime periods [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Pearson correlation heatmap of all features and target labels. Orange cells indicate positive correlation; blue cells indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Dual-branch Regime-Aware Multi-Modal Learning architecture. The price branch encodes a 24-hour OHLCV sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Adaptive Fusion Gate behaviour across market regimes. During stable periods (left), price dynamics dominate with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Metric comparison across all four models on the 3-hour prediction horizon. RAML achieves the best F1 (0.55) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Metric comparison on the 6-hour prediction horizon. The price-only model (B1) collapses catastrophically (recall: 0.09, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: F1 (blue) and AUC (orange) as a function of model variant on the 3-hour task. RAML is the only model achieving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: F1 and AUC on the 6-hour task. Price-only B1 exhibits the most extreme F1 degradation (0.16), reflecting near-total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Confusion matrices for all four models on the 3-hour prediction horizon (test set, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Radar chart comparing all four models across Precision, Recall, Accuracy, AUC, and F1 on the 3-hour prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Ablation metric profiles on the 3-hour horizon. Removing the sentiment branch (A1, orange) is the most damaging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Ablation metric profiles on the 6-hour horizon. The catastrophic recall collapse of A3 (No Fusion Weight, recall: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Global Cryptocurrency Market Report,

    CoinMarketCap, “Global Cryptocurrency Market Report,” 2025. [On- line]. Available: https://coinmarketcap.com

    2025

  2. [2]

    Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets?

    D. G. Baur, K. Hong, and A. D. Lee, “Bitcoin: Medium of exchange or speculative assets?”Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, vol. 54, pp. 177–189, 2018

    2018

  3. [3]

    Twitter mood predicts the stock market,

    J. Bollen, H. Mao, and X. Zeng, “Twitter mood predicts the stock market,”Journal of Computational Science, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    Cryptocurrency price prediction using tweet volumes and sentiment analysis,

    J. Abraham, D. Higdon, J. Nelson, and J. Ibarra, “Cryptocurrency price prediction using tweet volumes and sentiment analysis,”SMU Data Science Review, vol. 1, no. 3, 2018

    2018

  5. [5]

    Short-term stock market price trend prediction using a comprehensive deep learning system,

    J. Shen, J. O. Shafiq, and T. S. Wong, “Short-term stock market price trend prediction using a comprehensive deep learning system,”Journal of Big Data, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–33, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Noise trader risk in financial markets,

    J. B. DeLong, A. Shleifer, L. H. Summers, and R. J. Waldmann, “Noise trader risk in financial markets,”Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 703–738, 1990

    1990

  7. [7]

    Media attention and Bitcoin prices,

    D. Philippas, H. Rjiba, K. Guesmi, and S. Goutte, “Media attention and Bitcoin prices,”Finance Research Letters, vol. 30, pp. 37–43, 2019

    2019

  8. [8]

    Investor sentiment in the stock market,

    M. Baker and J. Wurgler, “Investor sentiment in the stock market,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 129–151, 2007

    2007

  9. [9]

    Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market,

    P. C. Tetlock, “Giving content to investor sentiment: The role of media in the stock market,”The Journal of Finance, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 1139– 1168, 2007

    2007

  10. [10]

    FinBERT: A pre-trained financial language representation model for financial text mining,

    Y . Liu, “FinBERT: A pre-trained financial language representation model for financial text mining,”arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063, 2019. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1908

  11. [11]

    CryptoBERT: Sentiment analysis for the cryptocurrency market,

    K. Huang, V . S. S. Nadella, and S. Hu, “CryptoBERT: Sentiment analysis for the cryptocurrency market,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14823, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Predicting the price of Bitcoin using machine learning,

    S. McNally, J. Roche, and S. Caton, “Predicting the price of Bitcoin using machine learning,” inProc. 26th Euromicro Int. Conf. Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing, Cambridge, UK, 2018, pp. 339–343

    2018

  13. [13]

    Predicting fluctuations in cryptocurrency transactions based on user comments and replies,

    Y . B. Kim, J. G. Kim, W. Kim, J. H. Im, T. H. Kim, S. J. Kang, and C. H. Kim, “Predicting fluctuations in cryptocurrency transactions based on user comments and replies,”PLOS ONE, vol. 13, no. 8, e0201904, 2018

    2018

  14. [14]

    Bitcoin price prediction using machine learning: An approach to sample dimension engineering,

    Z. Chen, C. Li, and W. Sun, “Bitcoin price prediction using machine learning: An approach to sample dimension engineering,”Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 365, 2020

    2020

  15. [15]

    Predicting the cryptocurrency market with attention mechanism,

    H. Liu, Y . Long, Y . Huang, and C. Song, “Predicting the cryptocurrency market with attention mechanism,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 164 801– 164 814, 2020

    2020

  16. [16]

    A sentiment-enhanced LSTM for cryptocur- rency price prediction,

    Y . Li, W. Dai, and Z. Cui, “A sentiment-enhanced LSTM for cryptocur- rency price prediction,”Applied Soft Computing, vol. 136, 2023

    2023

  17. [17]

    Applications of deep reinforcement learning in financial market trading,

    Z. Jiang, “Applications of deep reinforcement learning in financial market trading,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.09607, 2021

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  18. [18]

    Multi-modal cryptocurrency price prediction using social media and market data,

    Q. He, W. Li, Y . Sun, and X. Wang, “Multi-modal cryptocurrency price prediction using social media and market data,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 213, p. 119153, 2023

    2023

  19. [19]

    Regime-switching models for cryptocur- rency price prediction,

    Y . Wei, X. Wang, and D. Li, “Regime-switching models for cryptocur- rency price prediction,”Finance Research Letters, vol. 52, p. 103 516, 2023

    2023

  20. [20]

    FinBERT: A pretrained language model for financial communications,

    Z. Yang, D. Yang, L. Dyer, X. He, Y . Zhao, and Y . Zhao, “FinBERT: A pretrained language model for financial communications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.08097, 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  21. [21]

    Unified- IO: A unified model for vision, language, and multi-modal tasks,

    J. Lu, C. Clark, B. Zellers, R. Mottaghi, and A. Kembhavi, “Unified- IO: A unified model for vision, language, and multi-modal tasks,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08916, 2022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    A new approach to the economic analysis of nonsta- tionary time series and the business cycle,

    J. D. Hamilton, “A new approach to the economic analysis of nonsta- tionary time series and the business cycle,”Econometrica, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 357–384, 1989

    1989

  23. [23]

    Regime switches in interest rates,

    A. Ang and G. Bekaert, “Regime switches in interest rates,”Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 163–182, 2002

    2002

  24. [24]

    Empirical asset pricing via machine learning,

    S. Gu, B. Kelly, and D. Xiu, “Empirical asset pricing via machine learning,”The Review of Financial Studies, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 2223– 2273, 2020

    2020

  25. [25]

    The inefficiency of Bitcoin,

    A. Urquhart, “The inefficiency of Bitcoin,”Economics Letters, vol. 148, pp. 80–82, 2016

    2016

  26. [26]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” inProc. 3rd Int. Conf. Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015

    2015

  27. [27]

    PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Leber, J. Bradbury, et al., “PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,” inAd- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019