Augmenting large language models for financial sentiment analysis: a heuristic sparse mixture-of-experts framework


Abstract

Financial sentiment analysis (FSA) is essential for extracting actionable market insights from unstructured textual data to support investment decisions and risk management. Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable capabilities in general natural language processing, they nevertheless struggle to comprehensively capture the domain-specific semantics, numerical relationships, event impacts, and implicit sentiment expressions critical for robust financial sentiment interpretation within a unified framework. To address these limitations, this study proposes HSMoE-FSA, a novel Heuristic Sparse Mixture-of-Experts framework designed to augment LLMs for financial sentiment analysis. Specifically, the framework integrates four specialized LLM-based experts: FinSem for interpreting financial terminology, FinNum for modeling quantitative sensitivities, FinEvent for evaluating market-impact events, and FinSent for detecting latent sentiment cues. Leveraging an entropy-based routing mechanism, the framework dynamically activates optimal expert combinations through Top-K sparse gating and weighted aggregation, thereby enabling synergistic multi-dimensional feature fusion. Furthermore, a phased training strategy decouples expert module learning from router calibration to ensure stability. Extensive evaluations on benchmark datasets demonstrate that HSMoE-FSA achieves state-of-the-art performance, with weighted F1 scores ranging from 89.67% to 92.29%, representing absolute improvements of 0.72% to 1.74% over current leading methods. Moreover, qualitative analysis further confirms the framework's superior capability in resolving nuanced financial semantics and implicit sentiment through expert collaboration.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].