Same Day, Same Story; One Day Ahead, a Different Signal: The Dual Validity of Financial Sentiment
Updated 4 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294G55CNFQ9TYEAGTV7YYN8
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 4 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.11144
- T1 · 4 h ago
- Category
- cs.AI
- T1 · 4 h ago
Abstract
Financial NLP has a standard workflow: validate a sentiment tool against human labels, then trust it to extract market signal. This assumes the two evaluations measure the same thing. We test that assumption in a setting where both can be measured at once: a corpus of securities class actions (2002-2025) linking 70,500 X messages to abnormal stock returns, with a single-annotator human labelled gold sample. Running five instruments (VADER, Loughran-McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter-RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator) through one identical pipeline, we find that the relationship between construct and predictive validity depends on the sampling convention and score representation. Under conventional method-specific sampling, human agreement aligns more closely with graded same-day associations than with one-day leads. On a fixed-n panel, however, agreement has similar graded rank correlations at both horizons, while the coarse ordering remains weak. Benchmark agreement therefore establishes semantic validity but does not by itself determine predictive rankings. In a conversation that is 17.6% spam, message volume predicts neither market damage nor settlement size.
Authors 3
AS Aravinthkakshan, Laven Srivastava, Harsh Nandwani
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- cross
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.11144
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.SI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 4 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
4 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Financial NLP has a standard workflow: validate a sentiment tool against human labels, then trust it to extract market signal. This assumes the two evaluations measure the same thing. We test that assumption in a setting where both can be measured at once: a corpus of securities class actions (2002-2025) linking 70,500 X messages to abnormal stock returns, with a single-annotator human labelled gold sample. Running five instruments (VADER, Loughran-McDonald, FinBERT, Twitter-RoBERTa, and an LLM annotator) through one identical pipeline, we find that the relationship between construct and predictive validity depends on the sampling convention and score representation. Under conventional method-specific sampling, human agreement aligns more closely with graded same-day associations than with one-day leads. On a fixed-n panel, however, agreement has similar graded rank correlations at both horizons, while the coarse ordering remains weak. Benchmark agreement therefore establishes semantic validity but does not by itself determine predictive rankings. In a conversation that is 17.6% spam, message volume predicts neither market damage nor settlement size. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- New paperPaperSame Day, Same Story; One Day Ahead, a Different Signal: The Dual Validity of Financial Sentiment
New paper: Same Day, Same Story; One Day Ahead, a Different Signal: The Dual Validity of Financial Sentiment
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.CL | feed | T1· Official | 2 h ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.