Evaluating Financial Sentiment Analysis with Annotators Instruction Assisted Prompting: Enhancing Contextual Interpretation and Stock Prediction Accuracy

Financial sentiment analysis (FSA) presents unique challenges to LLMs that surpass those in typical sentiment analysis due to the nuanced language used in financial contexts. The prowess of these models is often undermined by the inherent subjectivity of sentiment classifications in existing benchmark datasets like Financial Phrasebank. These datasets typically feature undefined sentiment classes that reflect the highly individualized perspectives of annotators, leading to significant variability in annotations. This variability results in an unfair expectation for LLMs during benchmarking, where they are tasked to conjecture the subjective viewpoints of human annotators without sufficient context. In this paper, we introduce the Annotators' Instruction Assisted Prompt, a novel evaluation prompt designed to redefine the task definition of FSA for LLMs. By integrating detailed task instructions originally intended for human annotators into the LLMs' prompt framework, AIAP aims to standardize the understanding of sentiment across both human and machine interpretations, providing a fair and context-rich foundation for sentiment analysis. We utilize a new dataset, WSBS, derived from the WallStreetBets subreddit to demonstrate how AIAP significantly enhances LLM performance by aligning machine operations with the refined task definitions. Experimental results demonstrate that AIAP enhances LLM performance significantly, with improvements up to 9.08. This context-aware approach not only yields incremental gains in performance but also introduces an innovative sentiment-indexing method utilizing model confidence scores. This method enhances stock price prediction models and extracts more value from the financial sentiment analysis, underscoring the significance of WSB as a critical source of financial text. Our research offers insights into both improving FSA through better evaluation methods.

From Blind Solvers to Logical Thinkers: Benchmarking LLMs' Logical Integrity on Faulty Mathematical Problems

Consider the math problem: "Lily received 3 cookies from her best friend yesterday and ate 5 for breakfast. Today, her friend gave her 3 more cookies. How many cookies does Lily have now?" Many large language models (LLMs) in previous research approach this problem by calculating the answer "1" using the equation "3 - 5 + 3." However, from a human perspective, we recognize the inherent flaw in this problem: Lily cannot eat 5 cookies if she initially only had 3. This discrepancy prompts a key question: Are current LLMs merely Blind Solver that apply mathematical operations without deeper reasoning, or can they function as Logical Thinker capable of identifying logical inconsistencies? To explore this question, we propose a benchmark dataset, FaultyMath, which includes faulty math problems of rich diversity: i) multiple mathematical categories, e.g., algebra, geometry, number theory, etc., ii) varying levels of difficulty, and iii) different origins of faultiness -- ranging from violations of common sense and ambiguous statements to mathematical contradictions and more. We evaluate a broad spectrum of LLMs, including open-source, closed-source, and math-specialized models, using FaultyMath across three dimensions: (i) How accurately can the models detect faulty math problems without being explicitly prompted to do so? (ii) When provided with hints -- either correct or misleading -- about the validity of the problems, to what extent do LLMs adapt to become reliable Logical Thinker? (iii) How trustworthy are the explanations generated by LLMs when they recognize a math problem as flawed? Through extensive experimentation and detailed analysis, our results demonstrate that existing LLMs largely function as Blind Solver and fall short of the reasoning capabilities required to perform as Logical Thinker.