Selecting textual analysis tools to classify sustainability information in corporate reporting

IF 6.7 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Decision Support Systems Pub Date : 2024-06-11 DOI:10.1016/j.dss.2024.114269
Frederik Maibaum , Johannes Kriebel , Johann Nils Foege
{"title":"Selecting textual analysis tools to classify sustainability information in corporate reporting","authors":"Frederik Maibaum ,&nbsp;Johannes Kriebel ,&nbsp;Johann Nils Foege","doi":"10.1016/j.dss.2024.114269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Information on firms' sustainability often partly resides in unstructured data published, for instance, in annual reports, news, and transcripts of earnings calls. In recent years, researchers and practitioners have started to extract information from these data sources using a broad range of natural language processing (NLP) methods. While there is much to be gained from these endeavors, studies that employ these methods rarely reflect upon the validity and quality of the chosen method—that is, how adequately NLP captures the sustainability information from text. This practice is problematic, as different NLP techniques lead to different results regarding the extraction of information. Hence, the choice of method may affect the outcome of the application and thus the inferences that users draw from their results. In this study, we examine how different types of NLP methods influence the validity and quality of extracted information. In particular, we compare four primary methods, namely (1) dictionary-based techniques, (2) topic modeling approaches, (3) word embeddings, and (4) large language models such as BERT and ChatGPT, and evaluate them on 75,000 manually labeled sentences from 10-K annual reports that serve as the ground truth. Our results show that dictionaries have a large variation in quality, topic models outperform other approaches that do not rely on large language models, and large language models show the strongest performance. In large language models, individual fine-tuning remains crucial. One-shot approaches (i.e., ChatGPT) have lately surpassed earlier approaches when using well-designed prompts and the most recent models.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55181,"journal":{"name":"Decision Support Systems","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 114269"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923624001027/pdfft?md5=778287af14f22b6f2973f34c9352e358&pid=1-s2.0-S0167923624001027-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision Support Systems","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923624001027","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Information on firms' sustainability often partly resides in unstructured data published, for instance, in annual reports, news, and transcripts of earnings calls. In recent years, researchers and practitioners have started to extract information from these data sources using a broad range of natural language processing (NLP) methods. While there is much to be gained from these endeavors, studies that employ these methods rarely reflect upon the validity and quality of the chosen method—that is, how adequately NLP captures the sustainability information from text. This practice is problematic, as different NLP techniques lead to different results regarding the extraction of information. Hence, the choice of method may affect the outcome of the application and thus the inferences that users draw from their results. In this study, we examine how different types of NLP methods influence the validity and quality of extracted information. In particular, we compare four primary methods, namely (1) dictionary-based techniques, (2) topic modeling approaches, (3) word embeddings, and (4) large language models such as BERT and ChatGPT, and evaluate them on 75,000 manually labeled sentences from 10-K annual reports that serve as the ground truth. Our results show that dictionaries have a large variation in quality, topic models outperform other approaches that do not rely on large language models, and large language models show the strongest performance. In large language models, individual fine-tuning remains crucial. One-shot approaches (i.e., ChatGPT) have lately surpassed earlier approaches when using well-designed prompts and the most recent models.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
选择文本分析工具,对企业报告中的可持续发展信息进行分类
有关企业可持续发展的信息通常部分存在于非结构化数据中,例如年度报告、新闻和收益电话记录。近年来,研究人员和从业人员开始使用各种自然语言处理(NLP)方法从这些数据源中提取信息。虽然从这些努力中可以获益良多,但采用这些方法的研究很少对所选方法的有效性和质量进行反思,也就是说,NLP 如何从文本中充分捕捉可持续发展信息。这种做法是有问题的,因为不同的 NLP 技术会导致不同的信息提取结果。因此,方法的选择可能会影响应用的结果,进而影响用户从结果中得出的推论。在本研究中,我们研究了不同类型的 NLP 方法如何影响提取信息的有效性和质量。具体而言,我们比较了四种主要方法,即:(1) 基于词典的技术;(2) 主题建模方法;(3) 词嵌入;(4) 大型语言模型(如 BERT 和 ChatGPT),并在 75,000 个来自 10-K 年度报告的人工标注句子(作为基本事实)上对它们进行了评估。我们的结果表明,词典的质量差异很大,主题模型优于其他不依赖大型语言模型的方法,而大型语言模型的性能最强。在大型语言模型中,个别微调仍然至关重要。当使用精心设计的提示和最新的模型时,一次性方法(即 ChatGPT)最近已经超越了早期的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Decision Support Systems
Decision Support Systems 工程技术-计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
14.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
119
审稿时长
13 months
期刊介绍: The common thread of articles published in Decision Support Systems is their relevance to theoretical and technical issues in the support of enhanced decision making. The areas addressed may include foundations, functionality, interfaces, implementation, impacts, and evaluation of decision support systems (DSSs).
期刊最新文献
A comparative analysis of the effect of initiative risk statement versus passive risk disclosure on the financing performance of Kickstarter campaigns DeepSecure: A computational design science approach for interpretable threat hunting in cybersecurity decision making Editorial Board Effects of visual-preview and information-sidedness features on website persuasiveness The evolution of organizations and stakeholders for metaverse ecosystems: Editorial for the special issue on metaverse part 1
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1