Human Agreement and Return Association Are Not Interchangeable Criteria
TL;DR
Financial NLP has a standard workflow: validate a sentiment tool against human labels, then trust it to extract market signal, but it is found that the relationship between construct and predictive validity depends on the sampling convention and score representation.
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.
