Believe Analytics← Back to Home
← Back to Home

Sentiment GPT

Extract the Beliefs That Drive Markets

What You See → How You Interpret → What You Believe
Strip away objective description, precisely extract the subjective attitude toward a specific asset , turning financial text into a consistent measure of asset-specific sentiment.
Why Senti-GPT Is Different

Illustrative comparison. The same passage, three classification approaches.

Text
Example passage:

"The company achieved breakthrough innovation, expanded successfully, and steadily increased market share. However, I remain bearish."
AI
Sentiment / Research measure

01 / Definition

The author’s view of a specific asset

Financial text contains both facts and judgment. Revenue can rise while an author remains bearish. Weak earnings can accompany a bullish outlook. The facts and the opinion are distinct pieces of information.

Sentiment measures the author’s subjective attitude toward a specific asset, expressed through opinion or emotion. It answers a direct question: What view does the author express about this asset?

Investors encounter these views in commentary, analyst notes and social discussion. The measure records the target asset and the direction of the author’s expressed view.

Small ripples across a calm water surface
Individual views form part of the market’s information environment.Subjective view · Specific asset · Clear direction

The object

Author sentiment

Opinions and emotions expressed by the author. Favorable or unfavorable facts alone receive a neutral label.

The target

A specific asset

Each label applies to the target asset. A bullish view of one company does not extend to every company mentioned in the text.

The value

Beliefs made observable

The measure separates stated optimism or pessimism from factual reporting. It supports analysis of belief formation, disagreement and market participation.

Definition and decision rules follow the working paper, Separating Sentiment from Fundamentals Using a Large Language Model: How Does Media Sentiment Speak to the Crowd?

02 / Measurement

A consistent label for each asset and text

The three labels record the direction of sentiment, not its strength.

Negative

−1

An unfavorable opinion or negative emotion toward the target asset.

Neutral

0

No clear subjective direction toward the target asset. This category includes factual reporting and ambiguous expression.

Positive

+1

A favorable opinion or positive emotion toward the target asset.

Text × Target asset

Preserve the expressed view

Interpret the author’s opinion first. Use emotion when the opinion is neutral. Apply the same rules to short posts and long commentary.

Asset × Publication date

Track the distribution of views

Aggregate positive, negative and neutral labels by asset and publication date. Report category shares, text counts and changes over time. State the denominator.

Each text receives −1, 0 or +1. Averages and category shares summarize these labels across texts. When short- and long-horizon views conflict, the annotation rule prioritizes the short-horizon view. If the short-horizon view is neutral, the longer-horizon view applies.

9,000Human-annotated training posts
600Independent benchmark posts
89.17%Accuracy on the Chinese benchmark

Five annotators trained in finance define the decision rules. Task-specific fine-tuning trains the model to apply them. Independent evaluation tests performance on ordinary and difficult texts.

Validation across language and text formats

Difficult posts make up half of both the training corpus and the benchmark. The benchmark is separate from training and is evaluated after the model and prompt are fixed. Accuracy on external evaluation samples appears below.

Evaluation setTextsAccuracy
English translation of benchmark60086.83%
StockTwits21090.00%
Long-form financial texts13590.37%

Source: working paper, Methodology and Validating the Sentiment Classification. Accuracy is measured on the specified evaluation samples. It does not estimate accuracy across the full production archive.

03 / Descriptive statistics

Sentiment across texts and time

Explore the professional commentary sample and the retail discussion archive. Each sample has its own source, time span and classification denominator.

74,525WSJ, NYT and FT commentary articles · 1992–2024
228Companies in the commentary sample
358.37MValid forum sentiment labels · 2010–2025

Publication year · Share of classified texts

Sentiment over time

Professional commentary · 1992–2024
PositiveNegativeNeutral
202425.19% positive31.75% negative · 43.06% neutral778 articles
Positive, negative and neutral shares by publication year. Use the year slider for exact counts. The complete annual observations are in the tables below.0%25%50%75%100%19921997200220072012201720222024

Professional commentary spans 2 January 1992 to 29 November 2024. Annual shares pool article classifications by publication year. The working paper’s pipeline assigns a neutral label to 324 articles with no valid raw inference label.

Same articles · Two measurement targets

Dictionary tone and author sentiment

74,525 commentary articles

The two measures agree on 41.2% of classifications. Negative dictionary tone often accompanies a neutral or positive author view. The matrix shows how their labels differ.

Negative tone · Neutral sentiment52.8% of row19,175 articles
Observed classifications of 74,525 professional commentary articles. Rows are dictionary tone at threshold 0.25. Columns are author sentiment. Each cell can be selected to inspect the count and row percentage.Dictionary toneAuthor sentimentNegative (−1)Neutral (0)Positive (+1)Negative tone11,09030.6% of row19,17552.8% of row6,01816.6% of rowNeutral tone3,82713.6% of row15,50155.2% of row8,73931.1% of rowPositive tone6706.6% of row5,39453.0% of row4,11140.4% of row

6,018 articles combine negative dictionary tone with positive author sentiment.

Rows classify dictionary tone at threshold 0.25. Columns classify asset-specific author sentiment. Each cell percentage uses its row total. The matrix compares the two measures; it does not test classification accuracy.

Professional commentary · Source composition

Sentiment by publication

Negative · Neutral · Positive
FT
6,469 articles
NYT
2,515 articles
WSJ
65,541 articles

Each bar shows sentiment shares for one publication and is normalized to the same length. Article counts indicate source coverage.

Sample definitions, annual observations and download

Professional commentary. The sample contains 74,525 articles covering 228 companies, from 2 January 1992 to 29 November 2024. It includes firms that entered the largest 100 U.S. companies at least once during the collection period. Article-level descriptive statistics use the working paper’s raw-article inference pipeline, which assigns a neutral label to 324 articles with missing labels.

Retail discussion. The archive contains 365,701,929 dated posts in 2010–2025. Of these, 358,369,728 have valid sentiment labels. Annual shares exclude 7,332,201 posts with no valid label. The 2025 sample ends on 7 August. Publication dates include non-trading days. Statistics are grouped by publication year.

Source identity. Retail statistics use the Eastmoney Guba discussion archive. Commentary statistics use the working paper’s article sample. Counts are calculated separately for the two samples.

Download descriptive statistics (JSON)
Professional commentary · 1992–2024 · Annual observations
YearClassified textsNegativeNeutralPositive
19921,593319695579
19931,814382732700
19944,1744472,6981,029
19955,2488182,8661,564
19965,7311,0722,8451,814
19976,2311,0963,4051,730
19986,1041,2193,3391,546
19996,0551,0343,4351,586
20001,018218596204
20011,713451878384
20023,0117931,487731
20031,728427877424
20041,047239572236
20051,460292807361
20061,324270729325
20071,671372912387
20082,2396931,114432
20092,6686651,320683
20102,3675051,266596
20111,9354481,051436
20121,777426977374
20131,379320781278
20141,6723561,035281
20151,430330822278
20161,252342676234
20171,478329850299
20181,418332823263
20191,095352558185
2020674169327178
2021760205388167
2022877206488183
2023804213386205
2024778247335196
Retail discussion · 2010–2025 · Annual observations
YearClassified textsNegativeNeutralPositive
2010204,46921,572147,71435,183
2011307,36441,413209,41656,535
2012195,80645,30691,16559,335
20131,222,826151,499887,275184,052
20142,505,559607,0571,319,875578,627
20156,570,3141,925,8602,970,8601,673,594
201616,767,5745,523,1647,242,7264,001,684
201725,101,5837,823,69512,080,4445,197,444
201823,174,4338,102,14710,251,6514,820,635
201931,720,57611,171,24413,107,4457,441,887
202047,670,46717,265,52219,186,94811,217,997
202155,865,99820,079,21722,965,86512,820,916
202248,241,19818,011,89519,975,94010,253,363
202336,501,57312,019,03517,017,9277,464,611
202436,177,80711,752,37016,858,0047,567,433
202526,142,1818,481,32512,124,0935,536,763