BDCC 07 00137 v3

big data and
cognitive computing
Article
Predicting the Price of Bitcoin Using Sentiment-Enriched Time
Series Forecasting
Markus Frohmann 1,2 , Manuel Karner 1 , Said Khudoyan 1 , Robert Wagner 1 and Markus Schedl 1,2, *
1 Multimedia Mining and Search Group, Institute of Computational Perception, Johannes Kepler University
Linz (JKU), 4040 Linz, Austria; [email protected] (M.F.)
2 Human-Centered AI Group, AI Laboratory, Linz Institute of Technology (LIT), 4040 Linz, Austria
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract: Recently, various methods to predict the future price of financial assets have emerged.
One promising approach is to combine the historic price with sentiment scores derived via sentiment
analysis techniques. In this article, we focus on predicting the future price of Bitcoin, which is currently
the most popular cryptocurrency. More precisely, we propose a hybrid approach, combining time
series forecasting and sentiment prediction from microblogs, to predict the intraday price of Bitcoin.
Moreover, in addition to standard sentiment analysis methods, we are the first to employ a fine-tuned
BERT model for this task. We also introduce a novel weighting scheme in which the weight of
the sentiment of each tweet depends on the number of its creator’s followers. For evaluation, we
consider periods with strongly varying ranges of Bitcoin prices. This enables us to assess the models
w.r.t. robustness and generalization to varied market conditions. Our experiments demonstrate that
BERT-based sentiment analysis and the proposed weighting scheme improve upon previous methods.
Specifically, our hybrid models that use linear regression as the underlying forecasting algorithm
perform best in terms of the mean absolute error (MAE of 2.67) and root mean squared error (RMSE
of 3.28). However, more complicated models, particularly long short-term memory networks and
temporal convolutional networks, tend to have generalization and overfitting issues, resulting in
considerably higher MAE and RMSE scores.
Citation: Frohmann, M.; Karner, M.; Keywords: time series forecasting; sentiment analysis; emotion detection; regression analysis; data
Khudoyan, S.; Wagner, R.; Schedl, M. mining; social networks; Bitcoin
Predicting the Price of Bitcoin Using
Sentiment-Enriched Time Series
Forecasting. Big Data Cogn. Comput.
2023, 7, 137. https://doi.org/
1. Introduction
10.3390/bdcc7030137
Bitcoin (BTC) is a decentralized digital currency that allows for peer-to-peer transac-
Academic Editors: Albert Y.S. Lam
tions without the need for a central authority or middleman [1]. It was created in 2008
and Yanhui Geng
by an individual or group of individuals going by the alias Satoshi Nakamoto. The basic
Received: 22 May 2023 aim behind Bitcoin’s invention was to build a decentralized, trustless transaction system
Revised: 21 July 2023 that would eliminate the need for middlemen such as banks. Transactions are recorded
Accepted: 28 July 2023 on a public ledger known as the blockchain, which employs complicated algorithms to
Published: 31 July 2023 maintain the integrity and security of the system. It employs a proof-of-work consensus
process to ensure that only legitimate transactions are added to the blockchain and that the
network is kept safe. BTC has a limited supply of 21 million coins, ensuring that its inflation
rate is predictable and controllable. In recent years, it has seen widespread attention, not
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. only in terms of adoption as a payment method but also in trading. Therefore, accurately
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
predicting its price provides a unique advantage to the trader.
This article is an open access article
Predicting the price of BTC is an interesting and important task for a variety of reasons.
distributed under the terms and
One reason is that it can help investors and traders make educated decisions about whether
conditions of the Creative Commons
to buy or sell BTC. This task is also vital for companies and individuals that accept it as
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
a payment method, as it allows them to plan for anticipated fluctuations in the value of
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
the currency [2,3]. Understanding the variables driving the price of BTC can also help
Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7030137 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/bdcc

Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 137 2 of 20
politicians and regulators decide how to handle the cryptocurrency market [4–6]. In general,
projecting the price of BTC can provide useful information on the current situation and
future possibilities of the cryptocurrency sector [7,8]. Furthermore, it has been shown
in several independent studies that adding other attributes in addition to the price to a
given forecasting model can aid its forecast accuracy [9–11]. A promising approach is to
use sentiment scores derived from the content of news articles, blogs, or microblogs that
correspond to the same period as the price values [12–14]. For example, Vyas et al. [15]
and Zhou et al. [16] show the potential of BERT-based sentiment analysis models for
contemporary social problems related to the Russia–Ukraine war or for identifying rescue
request tweets, respectively. In accordance with these studies, we use sentiment analysis
techniques to predict the price of Bitcoin. Many individuals have invested considerable
amounts of their personal wealth in assets such as stocks, gold, or, recently, cryptocurrencies.
The latter, including Bitcoin, tend to be particularly volatile. Therefore, having a sound
estimate of the market sentiment and creating forecasts based on such sentiments can help
these individuals avoid detrimental consequences. For instance, the cryptocurrency market,
including Bitcoin, crashed by 25% in less than 48 h following the first signs of the collapse
of the popular FTX exchange on 9 November 2022, leading to unexpectedly high wealth
depletion [17,18]. In turn, the cryptocurrency market sentiment plummeted [19]. The
availability of a sentiment-enriched forecasting model could have alleviated this immense
financial damage to many individuals.
Sentiment analysis (SA) techniques are particularly useful for predicting the price of
assets since they provide insights into the public’s perspective and sentiment about the
asset. This data can give useful insights into the general market mood, which has been
proven to be a vital determinant in financial decision making [20–22]. Research has shown
that people make judgments based on emotions rather than logic [23]. Emotional decision
making can be captured through SA in social media data, which can then be used to forecast
prices. Another promising area of research is emotion detection (ED), which differentiates
itself from SA by classifying a specific set of emotions [24]. Furthermore, psychological
research has indicated that investor emotion is an important factor in financial decision
making. For example, Barberis et al. [25] demonstrated that the investor attitude may
influence asset prices and be used to forecast future returns. Similar findings have been
made for cryptocurrencies, including BTC [20]. As a result, SA can be a useful method for
predicting BTC prices, since it provides insight into the public’s view and mood toward
the cryptocurrency.
Traditionally, such techniques have relied on a complex set of rules. One popular
method that has been designed for microblogs is VADER [26]. Although it has shown
success in deriving accurate sentiment scores [10,26–28], it also has major shortcomings.
Given its rule-based approach, it cannot capture complex relations between individual
words. This, however, is where neural methods excel. A popular model that has been used
successfully for all types of natural language processing (NLP) tasks is BERT [29]. Recently,
many fine-tuned variants of BERT have been introduced, including versions specifically
tuned for microblogs and SA, as well as ED [30] tasks. Since they have also been shown to
excel in such tasks, our aim in this study is to make use of the capacity of such language
models when integrating them into different forecasting models.
In this article, our aim is to forecast the price of Bitcoin with the help of sentiment
scores derived from SA techniques. Against this background, we hypothesize that adding
collaborative sentiment information inferred from tweets to time series forecasting improves
the accuracy of predictions. The main contributions of this work are the following:
• We propose a new hybrid method that integrates time series forecasting and sentiment
analysis based on a fine-tuned BERT model, featuring a novel weighting scheme to
aggregate multiple sentiment scores from a given period into a single sentiment score.
• We thoroughly investigate our approach, which spans, compared to previous research,
both longer and more diverse price ranges and market scenarios, making the task
more realistic but also much harder.
• Using this setup, we show that our approach outperforms previous ones. In particular,
we empirically show that both our BERT model fine-tuned for sentiment analysis
and our novel weighting scheme improve forecasts in terms of predictive accuracy
(MAE and RMSE) compared to other setups. Moreover, we show that simpler models,
particularly linear regression models, tend to perform best, while more complex
models have issues with overfitting.
In the remainder of the article, we first give an overview of comparable approaches
(Section 2). Then, we specify our methodology in detail (Section 3), first in terms of
forecasting algorithms (Section 3.1) and then in terms of sentiment analysis methods
(Section 3.2) and also in terms of our data setup (Section 3.3). Finally, in Section 4, we share
our empirical results and discuss them both qualitatively and quantitatively. An overview
of our approach is also given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Overview of our BTC price forecasting pipeline. After having collected and pre-processed
the data, we feed 16 past BTC price values and sentiment scores into our forecasting models, which
generate forecasts for the future eight time steps. We compare our models with the actual BTC price
in terms of MAE and RMSE error metrics.
2. Related Work
Our work connects to two strands of research in the domain of Bitcoin price prediction:
time series forecasting (Section 2.1) and sentiment analysis (Section 2.2). State-of-the-art
methods combining both areas are reviewed in Section 2.3. We provide a summary table
of research work related to Bitcoin price prediction with the help of sentiment scores in
Table 1. We also sketch our novel contributions in this work (Section 2.4).
2.1. Time Series Forecasting for Cryptocurrencies

To obtain forecasts, there exist numerous models, ranging from very simple to highly
complex [9,31]. One strand of research employs deep learning models, such as long short-
term memory (LSTM) networks, to anticipate the price of BTC. These models have been
successful in capturing temporal relationships in data and can be trained on vast volumes
of data [31–33]. LSTM networks have also been successfully applied to predict the price of
BTC [2,34–36].
Jaquart et al. [34] trained a diverse set of forecasting models to predict binary relative
daily market movements of 100 cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, and showed that
an ensemble of LSTM and gated recurrent unit (GRU) networks, both of which belong
to the category of recurrent neural networks (RNNs), performs best. Uras et al. [35]
utilized multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), LSTM networks, and linear regression models
to predict the price of BTC, along with the prices of other stocks, and showed that LSTM
networks performed best. Patel et al. [2] and Hamayel and Owda [36] used LSTM and
GRU networks to forecast the price of BTC and also that of other cryptocurrencies. Their
experimental results indicate that models that perform well on BTC perform comparatively
well on other cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum, Litecoin, or Monero. Contemporary
to our study, Dimitriadou and Gregoriou [37] collected 24 relevant variables, such as
exchange rates or the value of other cryptocurrencies, to predict whether BTC would rise
or fall. In their results, the simple logistic regression model performed the best. In another
research work, three models, namely, an MLP, a support vector machine (SVM), and an
LSTM network, were trained to predict the price of BTC using its historical price and
several additional BTC trading indicators as input features [9]. The authors found that
the SVM with comparably few trainable parameters outperforms all others, including
the more complex ones. However, they failed to employ a proper, simple baseline model
that does not consider any additional features other than the historical price of BTC.
Moreover, Liu et al. [31] drew two conclusions that provide valuable insights relevant to
our research. First, they found that, in various time series forecasting tasks, more complex
models often suffer from overfitting, which they attributed to the limited availability of
training data. Second, they contended that transformer networks exhibit promising results
in certain time series forecasting tasks but are computationally expensive and unable to
effectively capture long-term dependencies from the distant past.
2.2. Sentiment Analysis

Another strand of research aims to capture sentiment scores derived from SA tech-
niques. In general, SA can be categorized into machine learning (ML), lexicon-based
methods, and rule-based techniques [38,39]. For text found on social media platforms, one
prominent method is VADER, which we describe in more detail in Section 3.2.1. VADER
has been employed for a variety of tasks; for example, for tasks specific to the COVID-19
pandemic [40,41], for app recommendations [42], or for classifying complex datasets [43].
Another SA method commonly used for social media data is TextBlob [44]. In contrast to
VADER SA, which derives its sentiment scores based on rules, TextBlob combines lexicon-
based approaches and ML techniques [45,46]. Notably, TextBlob has also been used for
emotion detection by Aslam et al. [47]. More recently, SA methods based solely on ML have
gained popularity [48], for example, methods based on convolutional neural networks [49],
recurrent networks [47], attention networks, [50] or transformer networks [51]. We provide
more details on the latter (in particular, BERT) in Section 3.2.2.
2.3. Combining Time Series Forecasting with Sentiment Scores

In addition to the historical price of financial assets, sentiment scores have been added
as an additional input feature to the model (most commonly, LSTM networks), in a number
of studies, with encouraging results [52–54]. Furthermore, several studies have shown the
ability of sentiment scores derived from the VADER SA technique to enhance the prediction
of the price of BTC [10,54–56]. For instance, Abraham et al. [57] and Mittal et al. [58]
combined sentiment scores with tweet volumes and Google Trends, respectively, to create
forecasts. Moreover, Wołk [14] used ten different forecasting models to predict the price of
several cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, and showed that psychological and behavioral
aspects have a strong impact on prices. In a recent study, Ye et al. [54] created a stacking
ensemble consisting of LSTM and GRU networks to predict the price of BTC based on
historical price data, various technical indicators, and VADER-derived sentiment scores.
Their results indicate that the combination of multiple model outputs through stacking
can improve forecast accuracy and that both technical indicators and sentiment scores
improve forecast accuracy. Likewise, Serafini et al. [13] employed two distinct models in
their research, namely, an ARIMAX model and an LSTM model, to forecast BTC prices.
The authors conducted experiments using various combinations of sentiment and financial
input features. In particular, their findings revealed that the inclusion of additional input
features, such as the BTC trading volume or the tweet volume, did not necessarily improve
the forecasting capabilities. This observation, which may seem counterintuitive for this
specific task, served as a key motivation for our study. Our aim is to investigate the analysis
of optimal combinations of characteristics and explore possible adjustments to improve the
performance of forecasting models.
Furthermore, they found that although the ARIMAX model they employed is simpler
it outperformed the more complex LSTM model. In another study, Edgari et al. [59] used
XGBoost, an implementation of a gradient-boosted decision tree, to estimate the price of
BTC during the COVID-19 pandemic. They used a dataset comprising tweets that date
from February 2021 to December 2021 and aggregated tweets into 1-min time windows. To
obtain sentiment scores, they applied VADER SA and used the average of the compound
score as the sentiment score for a given 1-min time interval. In addition to sentiment scores,
they added the average of user-related features over all users who created a tweet in a
given 1-min interval as input to the model, such as the number of followers, favorites, and
whether the user is verified or not. Finally, they predicted whether the price associated
with the next time step rises or falls, thus creating a binary classification task. Using the
aforementioned XGBoost model to make predictions, the authors concluded that sentiment
scores are indeed helpful for forecasting BTC prices. A summary table of the research
works related to the prediction of BTC prices with the help of sentiment analysis techniques
is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of related work on BTC price prediction leveraging sentiment scores. Year
corresponds to the publication year. Pred. target refers to the forecasting target of the BTC price:
binary means that the objective is to predict whether BTC will increase or decrease, and value means
that the objective is a direct prediction of the BTC price. Granularity corresponds to the degree to
which the data are aggregated for prediction. Model corresponds to the set of forecasting models used.
Additional features lists the features that are added in addition to the historical BTC price.
Ref. Year Pred. Target Granularity Model Additional Features

[55] 2020 binary 1 min random forest VADER SA
[54] 2022 value 30 min stacking ensemble of LSTM, GRU VADER SA, trading features
[56] 2022 value 12 h vector autoregression VADER SA
VADER SA, tweet volume, Google
[57] 2018 value 1 day linear regression
Trends
LSTM, vanilla RNN, linear regression, VADER SA, tweet volume, Google
[58] 2019 value 1 day
polynomial regression Trends
[14] 2019 value 1 day 10 different models VADER SA, Google Trends
[13] 2020 value 1 day LSTM, ARIMAX VADER SA, tweet volume
VADER SA, tweet volume, user-
[59] 2022 binary 1 min XGBoost
related features
2.4. Research Gaps and Novel Contributions

Reviewing related work, we identified research gaps concerning (1) the period spanned
by the investigated datasets and the corresponding BTC price ranges, (2) the use of more
up-to-date and sophisticated SA and ED techniques, and (3) the use of appropriate baselines.
Furthermore, we have not encountered studies that predict not only one but multiple time
steps into the future. Addressing these gaps, what sets the article at hand apart from
previous research is that we use a dataset spanning a longer period and more diverse
price ranges. Moreover, we employ not only VADER SA but also BERTweet-based SA and
ED. Additionally, we utilize a distinct set of forecasting models, including appropriate
baselines. The dataset we use comprises tweets from February 2021 up to November 2022,
which makes it more recent and covers a longer period as well as more diverse price ranges
compared to the one used by Edgari et al. [59] and other previous studies. Furthermore, we
conduct our investigation over a 30-min period rather than a 1-min period, as employed by
Edgari et al. [59]. This enables us to gain a more complete understanding of the market
sentiment and its influence on the price of BTC over time. Moreover, instead of the more
conventional way of predicting the price of a given asset in a time step p T +1 using the
prices of p T , p T −1 , ..., p T − N , where N may vary, we predict M time steps, with M > 1,
thus predicting the price of BTC for multiple time steps into the future. Although more
challenging, this approach allows for a longer forecast period, ranging from p T +1 to p T + M .
Consequently, it integrates the performance assessment of short- and mid-term forecasts
using just a single unified model. Predicting multiple time steps into the future enhances
the forecasting horizon, offering flexibility and adaptability in decision making to align
with different potential future scenarios. It also allows for the assessment of the model’s
performance across different time frames, contributing to a more holistic understanding of
market dynamics and providing insights into the model’s stability over time. Moreover, to
the best of our knowledge, we are the first to use BERT-based sentiment analysis techniques
to enrich the historical price of BTC with sentiment scores, along with emotion detection
scores, combining these unique forecasting characteristics.
3. Methodology
In the following, we provide a brief overview of the overall task as well as our
approach. The exact methodology of our hybrid BTC price forecasting algorithm will be
explained in more detail in the upcoming sections.
As visually described in Figure 2, we first gather data on both the historical price of
BTC and the time-aligned tweets, from which sentiments are extracted. The textual tweet
dataset is then pre-processed using standard NLP techniques, cleaned, and subjected to
three distinct types of SA methods. Next, we generate sentiment scores for each tweet. For
that, we use two distinct approaches, namely, VADER, which relies on rules, and different
variations of a BERT model, which is an ML model that can capture the relations between
words more richly compared to traditional rule-based methods. We group the output into
bins of 30-min intervals based on the corresponding tweets’ time stamps and then use two
distinct methods to weigh the derived sentiment values. The last step of data pre-processing
is to prepare the data so that it can be used as input to various forecasting methods.
Finally, as can be visually observed in Figure 1, we feed the prepared data into our ML
models. We use 16 30-min intervals, that is, 8 h, as input and predict 8 30-min intervals, that
is, 4 h, for all our forecasts. To predict the future price of BTC, we employ four different
types of models: linear regression (LR), LSTM networks [60], temporal convolutional
networks (TCNs) [61], and the D-Linear method [62], each of which uses a unique set
of covariates.
In the next sections, we outline the forecasting algorithms used (Section 3.1), specify
our method to compute sentiment scores (Section 3.2), and outline the data acquisition
procedure, as well as the processing steps (Section 3.3).
3.1. Forecasting BTC Price

We conduct most of our forecasting experiments with the Darts [63] framework, which
is based on PyTorch [64]. We feed 16 30-min intervals, i.e., 8 h, as input to our models and
predict 8 30-min intervals, i.e., 4 h, for all our forecasts. These values are chosen to reflect
the characteristics of intraday trading. We evaluate the final performance on the test set,
which has not been considered at all until the final evaluation. We use the validation set
to select the best hyperparameter setup for each model, including early stopping. More
information on how we split the data is given in Section 3.3.
Forecasting Algorithms. In our hybrid BTC price forecasting algorithm, we investi-
gate four types of ML-based algorithms: LSTM networks, TCNs, the D-Linear method,
and linear regression, along with some simple baselines. We decide to use LSTM net-
works and TCNs since both have shown remarkable success in a variety of forecast-
ing tasks [14,34,53,65,66], making them a very common choice for models with high
complexity. Moreover, we decide to use the D-Linear method and linear regression
since both have shown potential in making accurate forecasts while being comparatively
simple [35,62,67,68]. For forecasting, all our baselines rely solely on the price and do not
require any training. The other models that are employed, except for the LR model, are all
trained with the following commonalities: We train each of them for 50 epochs using the
mean squared error (MSE) loss function and the Adam optimizer, but we use early stopping
if the loss on the validation set does not decrease for five consecutive epochs. Additionally,
if the training loss does not decrease for three successive epochs, we cut the training rate by
half. More details on hyperparameter selection are provided in the following subsections
that detail the algorithms used.
3.1.1. Baselines
Exponential Smoothing. Exponential Smoothing (ES) is a time series forecasting
method that uses a weighted average of past observations to predict future observations [69].
The weights decrease exponentially as observations come from further in the past; the
smallest weights are associated with the oldest observations. It is a generalization of the
simple moving average, where all weights are equal. We use Holt–Winters’ ES [70] with
additive seasonality as well as trends and consider two periods in each seasonal cycle.
Fast Fourier Transform. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) decomposes the time series
into its frequency components [71,72], which are then used to predict future values of the
time series. It is particularly suitable for highly seasonal data. We use the standard Darts
hyperparameters.
Naive Mean. The Naive Mean model simply predicts the mean value of the input
series. Hence, in our case, it predicts the mean value of the last 16 BTC price values.
Naive Drift. The Naive Drift Model extends the line between the first and last point
of the training series into the future [63].
3.1.2. Long Short-Term Memory Network

The long short-term memory (LSTM) network, as introduced by Hochreiter and
Schmidhuber [60], is a type of recurrent neural network used for sequence prediction
problems. The network has memory, which allows it to learn from sequences of input
data. The LSTM model consists of memory blocks that are linked together. Each block
has a memory cell that is connected to gates that control the flow of information into
and out of the memory cell. The LSTM model is trained by unrolling the network and
presenting the input sequence one element at a time to the network. LSTM networks have
been used successfully for a variety of tasks, including time series forecasting [32,33]. To
predict multiple time steps into the future, the LSTM network learns a single-step forecast
and iteratively applies it to obtain multi-step forecasts (in our case, 8). Hence, it can be
characterized as autoregressive.
We train LSTM networks with a batch size of 2048, a learning rate of 0.0003, and a
dropout rate of 0.1. Moreover, we use LSTM networks with two layers with a hidden
dimension of size 512 and append two fully connected layers with sizes [512, 128] to the
hidden layers.
3.1.3. Temporal Convolutional Networks

Temporal convolutional networks (TCNs) are a class of neural networks that are
designed to operate over sequences of data, such as time series [61,73]. TCNs consist of a
stack of convolutional layers, pooling layers, and fully connected layers. The convolutional
layers are comprised of filters (kernels) that are applied to the input sequence; pooling
layers are used to down-sample the output of the convolutional layers; and the fully
connected layers are used to interpret the features extracted by the convolutional and
pooling layers.
We train TCNs with a batch size of 512, a learning rate of 0.001, and a dropout rate of
0.2. We use TCNs with 16 kernels of 8, 12 layers, and 2 as a dilation base. Moreover, we
apply weight normalization to stabilize the training process.
3.1.4. D-Linear
The D-Linear model is a novel time series forecasting method based on a single-layer
neural network [62]. First, it decomposes the input data into a trend by applying a moving
kernel average and a remainder (seasonal) component. Second, two single-layer linear
layers are applied to each component. Ultimately, the two features are summed up to
obtain the final predictions. Therefore, it has comparatively few parameters.
We train the model with a batch size of 2048, a learning rate of 0.01, and no dropout.
Moreover, we use a kernel size of 25 for the moving kernel average computation.
3.1.5. Linear Regression

Linear regression is a statistical method for modeling the relationship between a
dependent variable y and one or more explanatory variables (or independent variables)
denoted by X [74]. Since we rely on more than one explanatory variable, we conduct
multiple LR models. We perform least squares regression to find the best-fitting line for the
data, which is the line that minimizes the MSE between the predicted and target values. To
generate predictions for multiple time steps, we train a separate model for each future time
step. This results in eight independent models for our approach, each corresponding to a
single future time step.
3.2. Sentiment Analysis

The purpose of sentiment analysis, a branch of natural language processing, is to
discover the general view or attitude of a speaker or writer toward a certain topic or
issue automatically [38,39]. Machine learning, lexicon-based methods, and rule-based
approaches are some of the techniques that may be utilized for SA [38,39].
In our study, we rely on two distinct SA approaches: The first is VADER, which relies
on a set of rules and has been used successfully in many studies [10,55,56,59]; but it cannot
capture the relations between words. It is specifically designed for social media data. The
second relies on BERT, which has shown great promise in various NLP tasks, including SA
and ED. Since BERT is a general-purpose model, we use fine-tuned variants of BERT that
suit our hybrid BTC price forecasting algorithm.
3.2.1. VADER Sentiment Analysis

VADER is an SA method that has been specifically designed for social media data [26].
The rule-based model has become one of the most popular since its introduction in
2014 [10,11,59,75]. To define these rules, the authors introduce a combination of quali-
tative and quantitative methods to generate a “gold-standard” lexicon that is specially
tuned for social media text, all while following an “explicit human-centric approach”.
Hence, each word in the English language is associated with a sentiment polarity (posi-
tive/negative) and sentiment intensity. These scores are aggregated to obtain scores for
a single passage or document. Finally, upon qualitative analysis, the authors decide to
use further heuristics incorporating word-order sensitive relationships between terms,
namely, punctuation, capitalization, degree modifiers, “but” as a sentiment polarity shifter,
and catching negation flips by considering tri-grams. These heuristics modify the score
of a given passage or document. For each piece of text, VADER outputs four kinds of
sentiment scores: positive, negative, and neutral, corresponding to sentiment polarity with a
given intensity, and a compound score. For the SA methods, we conduct experiments using
all scores but also only using the compound score as input to the model in addition to the
historical price data.
To obtain sentiment scores using VADER, we use the open-source Python implemen-
tation provided by the authors of the original paper [76].
3.2.2. BERT-Based Sentiment Analysis

BERT is a pre-trained transformer model that has been successfully applied to a wide
variety of tasks and domains [29]. The attention mechanism employed in these models
allows them to capture the context, specifically the surrounding words in the sentence. We
rely on two different, fine-tuned versions of BERT, each of which outputs a distinct set of
sentiment features. Both rely on BERTweet [30], which is a version of BERT that has been
further trained on English tweets.
Despite being much more computationally expensive than VADER, we employ BERTweet-
based SA and ED models, since both models have shown state-of-the-art performance on
their respective tasks [30]. Moreover, they have not yet been used to predict the price of
BTC to the best of our knowledge.
To obtain sentiment scores using BERTweet-based SA and ED models, we use the respec-
tive models for English, as provided by the open-source Python library pysentimiento [51].
BERTweet-based sentiment analysis. The first specialized model is a BERTweet-
based SA model for English tweets. It starts from the weights of BERTweet and further
fine-tunes them on the SemEval-2016 dataset [77], which is an SA dataset. For each piece of
text, it produces three types of sentiment scores: positive, negative, and neutral. In addition,
we define a compound score, which simply consists of subtracting the negative score from
the positive score.
BERTweet-based emotion detection. The second specialized model is a BERTweet-
based ED model for English tweets. Again, it starts from the weights of BERTweet, but
this time it is further fine-tuned on the EmoEvent dataset [78], which is an ED dataset. For
each piece of text, it produces seven scores, each corresponding to a distinct emotion: joy,
sadness, anger, surprise, disgust, fear, and, additionally, a score for others. We have decided
to also include ED since emotions enable a more nuanced distinction of sentiment towards
BTC compared to only using positive, negative, and neutral scores, which also improves
interpretability. In this setup, we use all seven emotion scores as input to the model, in
addition to the historical price data.
3.3. Data Acquisition and Processing

In the following, we outline our data acquisition and processing approach. First,
we describe how we collect our data (Section 3.3.1) and how we pre-process the tweets
(Section 3.3.2). Then, we explain how we aggregate multiple sentiment scores of tweets from
a given time interval into a single sentiment score for the given time interval (Section 3.3.3).
Finally, we show how we merge our two data sources and how we split the data into train,
validation, and test sets (Section 3.3.4). Our data and pre-processing pipeline is shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Overview of our data acquisition and pre-processing pipeline. After having collected both
BTC prices and relevant tweets, we pre-process the text, resulting in cleaned tweets. Next, we derive
sentiment scores using VADER SA, BERTweet SA, and BERTweet ED. Based on these sentiment
scores, we aggregate multiple tweets using two different weighting schemes. Finally, we merge the
two datasets and split the data into train, validation, and test sets. Previous methods are marked in
blue, whereas our introduced methods are in red.
3.3.1. Data Collection

For our evaluation experiments, we require some historical BTC price data as well as
tweets. We leverage the Binance API [79], which offers price data at 30-min intervals, to
obtain the information for the BTC price. We use the BTC-USDT pair, as USDT (Tether) is
the stablecoin with one of the highest market caps tied to the US Dollar, which in turn is the
most significant currency for worldwide trading. Hence, this provides a realistic scenario
from the point of view of a trader.
Secondly, to obtain sentiment scores that are calculated based on tweets from Twitter,
we use a dataset from Kaggle [80], which consists of tweets with the hashtag #BTC or
#Bitcoin. Furthermore, the dataset consists of tweets spanning from 10 February 2021 to
20 November 2022. This period saw particularly volatile BTC prices. Later, forecasting
these prices from these diverse ranges proved to be a significant challenge. The dataset
consists of 4.5 million relevant tweets in total, with 11 attributes each. For our use case,
only the attributes “text” (i.e., the content of the tweet), “date” (the exact time of creation),
and “user_followers” (i.e., how many followers the author of the tweet had at the time
of posting) are of relevance. However, the dataset comes with one limitation: there are
numerous temporal gaps—periods when there were no tweets at all. They frequently lasted
for several weeks and, in fact, more than half of the days lack any tweet data. Therefore, we
had to discard these time periods, which also significantly reduced the amount of data on
which we could reliably train our models. However, we still opt to use this dataset, as it is
quite large. Moreover, one major goal of this study was to see how well models generalize
over unseen price ranges and market conditions; for that, we needed a dataset that spans
periods corresponding to varying market conditions. This also clearly differentiates our
setup from those used in previous studies and makes it more useful for real-life use cases.
3.3.2. Text Pre-Processing

The dataset is first cleaned using common practices as employed in the literature as
part of our text pre-processing process [12,56,59]. We eliminate non-English tweets with
langdetect [81] and tweets with fewer than three characters. We also replace over two (or
more) subsequent dots with a space, remove multiple spaces, and remove words with only
one character with the Python-based open-source library Pandas. After having cleaned the
dataset, 458,472 tweets remain for further pre-processing. Subsequently, we prepare the
text in a format with which our sentiment analysis methods work well. This process is
different for our different approaches. To prepare the data for VADER, we lowercase the
tweets; remove @, $, and # signs; and remove stopwords. Although both methods have
been used in the related literature [12,56], we choose not to lemmatize or stem the text
because in our dataset there are many domain-related terms, abbreviations, and jargon
that may not necessarily benefit from common lemmatization or stemming techniques. To
prepare the data for BERT-based SA, we follow the process described by Pérez et al. [51]: # signs,
@ signs, and URLs are replaced with special tokens (and not removed, as performed for
VADER), and emojis are converted to their text representations.
3.3.3. Data Aggregation

Having sentiment scores for each tweet, the next step is to aggregate the sentiment
of all tweets from a given 30-min interval into a single sentiment score corresponding to
the overall sentiment in a given time period (in our case, 30-min). There exist different
ways to weigh the scores, such as taking the mean, median, or sum of all the sentiment
scores. We conduct experiments with two different weighting schemes. For each of them,
we independently weigh the different scores of each SA method.
Mean weighting. The first is to simply take the mean sentiment score of all tweets in
each 30-min interval. In other words, we compute
n
s ( xi )
∑ n
,
i =1
where s( xi ) is the sentiment score of a tweet xi in the current 30-min interval, and n is the
number of tweets in this interval.
Weighting by number of followers. The second one, which we will refer to as user
influence weighting, relies on the assumption that Twitter users with more followers are
more influential and therefore presumably more relevant. Based on this, we arrive at the
following novel weighting scheme:
∑in=1 s( xi )(ln(wi + 1) + 1)
,
∑in=1 ln(wi + 1) + 1
where s( xi ) is the sentiment score of a tweet xi in the current 30-min interval, and wi is
the number of followers the author of the tweet had at the time of creation. We use the
logarithm to dampen the effect of users with a very large number of followers, inspired by
the retrieval method BM25 [82].
3.3.4. Data Source Merging and Splitting

Finally, we merge the two data sources, namely, historical BTC prices and sentiment
scores from Twitter, into a single data source, which can be neatly achieved by matching
their respective time steps. Next, we split the data into train, validation, and test splits
based on time to counteract the “peek-a-boo” anti-pattern [83], which would be violated
if we used a random or stratified split based on the target value, an otherwise common
practice in ML. We used 80% of the available data for training and 10% as validation and
test sets, respectively. Using this splitting strategy, the training data spans from 11 February
2021 up to 6 June 2022; the validation data from 14 June 2022 up to 6 September 2022; and
the test data from 11 September 2022 up to 20 November 2022. The gaps in the respective
sets are due to the gaps in the dataset because we want to avoid splitting during a period
with a gap. Note that the size of the splits does not depend on the date but rather on the
number of 30-min intervals available during a given time interval. Finally, we standardize
the data based on the values in the training set.
We also experimented with additional feature engineering, including exponential
moving averages, temporal features such as the day of the week or holidays, and the
total number of tweets in each time interval (i.e., tweet volume). However, none of these
significantly improved performance metrics in our experiments. We assume that this may
be due to the highly volatile nature of BTC.
4. Evaluation and Discussion

In this section, we present the results of our main experiments, which aim to evaluate
the performance of the investigated BTC price forecasting algorithms. First, we provide a
comprehensive overview of the performance of all algorithms, including baselines, when
only considering the price as input. Next, we compare the performance of all of the algo-
rithms that we used with varying input features, using the mean weighting scheme. This
gives us a better understanding of how each algorithm performs with different sentiment
scores. Afterward, we compare the performance of the mean weighting scheme with our
user influence weighting scheme. We demonstrate how our user-influenced weighting
scheme affects the overall performance of the algorithms and identify if it outperforms the
mean weighting scheme. Overall, these experiments provide us with a better understand-
ing of how each algorithm performs under various conditions and help us determine the
most efficient algorithm and weighting scheme for our study. By analyzing the results of
these experiments, we are able to identify the most suitable algorithm and combination of
features to predict the price of BTC.
For reference, the minimum price of BTC during the entire period was USD 15,704,
while the maximum value was USD 68,633, with the latter occurring during the training
set period. However, the minimum price of the training set was USD 27,114, whereas the
minimum price occurring during the test set period was USD 15,704. The maximum price
that occurred during the period of the test set was USD 22,713. This divergence highlights
the difference between the training and test set price ranges. Therefore, in order to perform
well on the test set, our models need to have good generalization capabilities.
We evaluate all our models on the test set using the RMSE (root mean squared error)
and MAE (mean absolute error) error metrics. Since we compute multiple forecasts, we
consider every output prediction, compare it with the ground truth, compute the respective
error metric over our eight forecasting time steps, and then take the average, as can be seen
in Figure 1. Then, we move one time step forward and again compute the same metric
over the next eight forecasting time steps. The final results, as reported in Tables 2–4, are
obtained by computing the arithmetic mean of the averages of the computed error metrics.
To investigate whether our best models are significantly better than the other models,
we make use of statistical testing. To accomplish this, we first test whether our dataset
is stationary or normally distributed, since some commonly used tests, such as ANOVA,
require normally distributed samples. To check whether the data are normally distributed,
we use the Shapiro–Wilk test. The test reveals that the dataset does not follow a normal
distribution. We also employ a quantile–quantile (qq) plot to visually check the data to
verify our findings. Moreover, to check stationarity, an important aspect, we conduct a
Kwiatkowski–Phillips–Schmidt–Shin (KPSS) test. On the basis of this test, we conclude
that Bitcoin price data are non-stationary, which might be associated with their highly
volatile nature in general. Moreover, we use the statsmodels Python library to split the
price data into seasonal, trend, and residual components. Based on these components,
we find that the time series does not display a significant seasonal pattern. Moreover,
we notice a declining tendency in the validation set but not in the training set. Finally,
we validate the time series by plotting the autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial
autocorrelation function (PACF) of the BTC price. In summary, the results of the ACF
plot (e.g., 0.5 at lag 20) indicate a moderate correlation between the current value and its
past values up to lag 20. However, the PACF plot indicates a very strong correlation of
almost 1 of the first 2 lags with the current value, while lags from the third and onward
show a correlation closer to 0, suggesting that the current value becomes less dependent on
its past values beyond the immediate two lags. By conducting these tests and analyzing
the results, we gained valuable insights into the properties of the Bitcoin datasets, which
will inform our subsequent modeling and analysis. Furthermore, it helps in choosing
the appropriate statistical test. Based on our findings, using the results on the test set
of all models, we conduct a permutation test, as it is more robust w.r.t. different sample
distributions and, hence, more robust than the commonly used t-test. Using this test, we
use a high permutation number of 1,000,000 to obtain a higher precision of the p-value,
resulting in a standard deviation of only 1.2 × 10−4 . In the following, we discuss a few
observations, both in terms of models and features.
Table 2. Comparison of performance of forecasting algorithms on the test set using only the BTC
price as input, with data spanning from 5 February 2021 up to 20 November 2022. The best score for
a given feature combination is marked in bold, and the second best is underlined. Columns on the
right indicate the different forecasting algorithms, as specified in Section 3.1. All of them use the BTC
price as the only input attribute. We conduct a permutation test to determine statistical significance
between our best models and the other models. † indicates that all of the LR, D-Linear, ES, and Drift
models perform significantly better (p < 0.05) than all other models with worse performance.
Metric LSTM TCN D-Linear LR ES FFT Drift Mean

MAE 11.69 13.71 3.40 † 2.72 † 4.15 † 9.46 3.43 † 7.13
RMSE 12.22 14.19 4.22 † 3.33 † 5.01 † 10.04 3.97 † 7.51
Table 3. Comparison of performance of algorithms and SA techniques on the test set using mean
weighting, with data spanning from 5 February 2021 up to 20 November 2022. The best score for a
given feature combination is marked in bold, and the second best is underlined. Columns on the right
indicate the different forecasting algorithms, as specified in Section 3.1. Rows indicate the covariates
used as inputs to the different forecasting algorithms, depending on the SA method employed. All
scores means that all the sentiment scores are used as covariates, while compound score corresponds
to only using the compound score that is calculated based on the other scores as a covariate. All
setups use the past price of BTC, as described in Section 3, as input. We conduct a permutation test to
determine statistical significance between our best models and the other models. † indicates that both
the LR and D-Linear models perform significantly better than the other models, while ‡ indicates
that our LR model is better than all other models with worse performance, including D-Linear. Both
† and ‡ correspond to p < 0.05.
SA Method Scores Metric LSTM TCN D-Linear LR

MAE 90.50 19.22 4.49 † 3.23 †
All
RMSE 90.67 19.69 5.48 † 3.96 †
VADER SA
MAE 25.81 12.84 3.46 † 2.71 †
Compound
RMSE 26.17 13.37 4.23 † 3.31 †
MAE 53.32 22.72 4.75 † 3.14 †
All
RMSE 53.09 22.18 5.93 † 3.85 †
BERTweet SA
MAE 35.04 11.56 3.75 † 2.67 †
Compound
RMSE 35.41 12.10 4.75 † 3.28 †
MAE 22.39 15.49 6.35 2.87 ‡
BERTweet ED All
RMSE 22.94 16.07 8.02 3.52 ‡
Table 4. Comparison of performance of algorithms and different weighting schemes on the test set
using all sentiment scores, with data spanning from 5 February 2021 up to 20 November 2022. The best
score for a given feature combination is marked in bold, and the second best is underlined. Columns
on the right indicate the different forecasting algorithms, as specified in Section 3.1. Rows indicate
the covariates used as inputs to the different forecasting algorithms, depending on the SA method
employed. Mean weighting and user influence weighting refer to the different weighting schemes intro-
duced in Section 3.3.3. We conduct a permutation test to determine statistical significance between
our best models and the other models. † indicates that both the LR and D-Linear models perform
significantly better than the other models, while ‡ indicates that our LR model is better than all other
models with worse performance, including D-Linear. Both † and ‡ correspond to p < 0.05.
SA Method Weighting Metric LSTM TCN D-Linear LR

MAE 90.50 19.22 4.49 † 3.23 †
Mean
RMSE 90.67 19.69 5.48 † 3.96 †
Vader SA
MAE 132.54 25.55 4.37 † 3.35 †
User influence
RMSE 132.66 25.98 5.36 † 4.11 †
MAE 53.32 22.72 4.75 † 3.14 †
Mean
RMSE 53.09 22.18 5.93 † 3.85 †
BERTweet SA
MAE 53.09 10.13 4.53 † 3.01 †
User influence
RMSE 53.33 10.78 5.68 † 3.69 †
MAE 22.39 15.49 6.35 2.87 ‡
Mean
RMSE 22.94 16.07 8.02 3.52 ‡
BERTweet ED
MAE 36.13 14.43 5.97 2.84 ‡
User influence
RMSE 36.48 14.95 7.36 3.49 ‡
4.1. Model Comparison

First, we compare our different models with each other: LR, D-Linear, TCN, and LSTM.
The results are shown in Table 3.
Models with a lot of parameters (LSTM and TCN) are prone to overfitting, which
is a typical problem that occurs when a model is overly sophisticated and can recall the
training data but fails to generalize to new data, i.e., test data. Indeed, they perform
very well on the training set but perform poorly on the test set. Specifically, the variance
in their predictions on the test set is very high, and their predictions are generally too
high. Increasing regularization, such as dropout or weight decay, did not ameliorate
their weak performance. We hypothesize that this may be due to not using enough
training data and that the gaps in the training set in particular hurt their generalization
performance significantly. Second, the D-Linear model performs decently but not as well
as LR. Compared to the baselines, it is only better in terms of the MAE. As an ultimate
observation, we see that LR is by far our best model. It does not have issues with overfitting
and is also the fastest to train. We hypothesize that this may be due to the unconventional
method we have chosen, i.e., fitting a single LR model for each output prediction.
Figure 3 shows the performance of our models on the last segment of the test set using
mean weighting and all sentiment scores. The results indicate that the more complex models
in particular have difficulties with previously unseen price ranges and market conditions
observed in the test set periods. The predictions of the complex LSTM and TCN models are
rather unstable and always overestimate the true price, indicating that they are unable to
generalize. In contrast, the simpler D-Linear model predicts the correct price ranges more
accurately but is still unstable. Finally, the LR model predicts the general price ranges well
while also making the best forecasts, showing its superior generalization capabilities.
Figure 3. Performance of our models on the last segment of the test set using mean weighting and all
sentiment scores of BERTweet SA.
4.2. Feature Comparison

Next, we compare our different feature setups with each other using only the price,
using the price and VADER, using the price and BERTWeet SA (all sentiment scores vs.
only the compound score), and using the price and BERTWeet ED using all scores. The
results are shown in Table 3.
First, the combination of the BERTweet SA compound score and an LR model yields
the highest overall performance. However, BERTweet SA with the compound score alone
is not always the best combination of features. Second, for both VADER and BERTweet SA,
leveraging the compound score only instead of all the features performed generally better.
This seems surprising, especially for the more sophisticated models, which should have the
capability to capture what is meaningful and what is not. However, this possibility may
have been impeded by the temporal gaps in our data. In addition, BERTweet SA works
slightly better than VADER SA. This is exemplified by our best model, which relies solely
on the BERTweet SA compound score. However, which one is better depends heavily on the
specific model and feature combination. Another observation we make is that BERTweet
ED works decently. In most cases, it works better than providing all SA scores (for both
VADER and BERTweet) but worse than providing only the compound scores. In general,
we find that sentiment scores provide assistance only in specific situations, as is evident
from a comparison between Tables 2 and 3. For the more complex models, it even hurts
their average performance. We suspect that this may be due to not having enough training
data to generalize to these unseen domains and, especially, price ranges.
4.3. Weighting Comparison

Next, we compare the mean weighting scheme (as used above) with our user influence
weighting scheme (see Section 3.3.3). The results are shown in Table 4.
Again, we want to highlight a couple of observations. First, except for VADER SA,
our novel user influence weighting scheme aids in every feature/model combination
(except for LSTM + BERTweet ED, which is an outlier). Sometimes it increases predictive
performance by a large margin (e.g., greater than 2× improvement for TCN + BERTWeet
SA). This underlines the merits of our method. However, for VADER SA, our user influence
weighing scheme slightly decreases the predictive performance for all but one model
(D-Linear), but only insignificantly. Therefore, we conclude that our method encourages
further experiments using our user influence weighting, and, additionally, the exploration
of other weighting schemes.
4.4. Comparison with Other Research Works

Additionally, we compare our hybrid BTC price forecasting algorithm with other,
similar research works in terms of experimental setup and design. However, comparing
our research work directly with others is not possible since we employ a unique forecasting
scheme and dataset.
To predict the next 4 h price of BTC, we use a combination of sentiment scores derived
from microblogs and historical BTC price data from the previous 8 h for each prediction.
Serafini et al. [13] utilized an ARIMAX and an LSTM model to predict the price of BTC of
the next day, while Edgari et al. [59] utilized an XGBoost model to classify whether BTC
would rise or fall in the next minute. Hence, both comprise highly different periods. Both
research works employ a similar approach by first collecting historical BTC price data and
tweets for SA, be it by simply using it from Kaggle [59] or by using a web scraper [13].
Both used VADER to derive sentiment scores for a single tweet. Edgari et al. [59] used
accuracy, the AUC (area under curve), and the F1-score as error metrics and showed that
adding sentiment scores as inputs to the model considerably improved the performance
with respect to each metric. With added sentiment scores, they were able to predict whether
BTC would rise or fall with an accuracy of 90%. Serafini et al. [13] showed that the
ARIMAX model outperforms the more complex LSTM model, and, using the ARIMAX
model, achieved an MSE of 0.14%. Interestingly, they found that using a lower number of
features produces better forecasts compared to using more features, which coincides with
our findings.
However, it must be noted that the datasets used by both methods comprise totally
different time periods and price ranges compared to ours—specifically, Serafini et al. [13]
used data from April 2017 to October 2019, while Edgari et al. [59] used data from February
2021 to December 2021. Although our hybrid method shows higher error metrics compared
to the work of Serafini et al. [13], our evaluation is both more robust and realistic, since it
spans more diverse price ranges and market scenarios. Moreover, we use more models
for comparison, employ two other SA techniques based on BERTweet, and improve the
forecasts with our novel weighting scheme. The period under consideration in the work of
Edgari et al. [59] is even shorter and, hence, makes evaluating their method very limiting
and only useful for the employed 1-min period. In addition, we also employ proper
baselines, which both research works we compare with lack [13,59]. Since our work does
not feature any of the limitations mentioned, we argue that it is more useful compared to
previously employed research works. Other approaches, as specified in Section 2, are even
more dissimilar to ours, making any comparison unfeasible.
5. Conclusions and Future Work

In this article, we propose a new hybrid method for predicting the price of Bitcoin,
using historic prices and affective cues from tweets. Our method integrates time series
forecasting techniques with SA and ED based on a BERTweet model. It also adopts a novel
weighting scheme to aggregate multiple sentiment scores from a given time period into
a single sentiment score, factoring in the importance or influence of Twitter users. We
investigate our method on a dataset spanning long and diverse price ranges and show
that our approach outperforms previous methods in terms of predictive accuracy. Our
empirical results indicate that sentiment scores derived from both VADER and BERTweet
can help investors make better forecasts, which supports the hypothesis set in Section 1.
Based on our findings, we suggest using simple models such as linear regression to predict
the price of Bitcoin instead of more complex ones, particularly if the amount of available
data is limited. Moreover, we suggest using BERT-based SA techniques and experimenting
with weighing the influence of sentiment scores.
Forecasting the price of BTC is a very challenging task because it is a highly volatile
asset. To acknowledge this fact, we created a dataset spanning price ranges from very
bullish to bearish periods, thereby following a more realistic experimental setup than
in previous works. To accurately forecast prices during such periods, a high degree
of generalizability is required from the adopted forecasting model. We achieve this by
combining the historical price data with sentiment scores that are derived from a BERT
model fine-tuned first on tweets and then on sentiment analysis and are weighted by the
number of followers of the author of the tweet; additionally, we use a linear regression
model that is less prone to overfitting compared to more complex models. Furthermore,
we show that it is precisely overfitting that causes more complex models to have issues.
We suspect that they could benefit significantly from an even larger and more diverse
dataset. It would be interesting to see whether these models then perform better or even
outperform simpler models, as has been shown in previous work, but using different setups
and especially market conditions. For now, our recommendation is to use simpler models,
such as linear regression. In addition to their better generalization capabilities, they are
also faster during inference and easier to use.
We have shown that BERTweet-based SA generally outperforms VADER SA in terms
of MAE and RMSE. In addition, we are the first to use BERTweet-based ED for this task.
Although it generally did not perform as well as the two investigated SA models, we have
shown that it can be used to improve price forecasts, particularly for the more complex
models. The more granular classification in ED also adds an additional dimension of
interpretability. In future work, it may be of interest to combine these emotion scores
with sentiment scores. Finally, it should be noted that including sentiment scores in the
forecasting process often does not improve the forecast accuracy. However, in the cases
where it does, it can significantly boost performance.
Moreover, we have shown that weighting the influence of the sentiment scores of a
given tweet in a more sophisticated way enables generally better forecasts. In future work,
it may be of interest to use other weighting functions, other weighting features (i.e., not
just the number of followers but also the number of friends or a combination of the two),
or to combine different weighting schemes, either by a simple linear combination or by
feeding each of them as input into the model. One limitation of our work is the period
under consideration; while being longer than the period in previous research works, it
would be of interest to assess model generalizability during even longer periods. Another
extension of our work is to study the approach for predicting other cryptocurrencies such
as Ethereum. We leave this for future research.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization: M.F., M.K., S.K. and R.W.; data curation: M.F.; formal
analysis: M.F. and S.K.; funding acquisition: M.S.; investigation: M.F. and M.K.; methodology: M.F.
and S.K.; project administration: M.S.; resources: M.F.; software: M.F.; supervision: M.S.; validation:
M.F.; visualization: M.F.; writing—original draft: M.F., M.K., S.K. and R.W.; writing—review and
editing: M.F., M.K., S.K., R.W. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received support from the Austrian Science Fund (FWF): DFH-23 and from
the State of Upper Austria and the Federal Ministry of Education, Science, and Research, through
grant LIT-2020-9-SEE-113.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Restrictions apply to the availability of the data used. The data were
obtained from Kaggle as well as Binance and are available using the respective APIs at [80] and at [79]
with the permission of Kaggle and Binance, respectively.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Marta Moscati for her invaluable feedback on
the manuscript and Kaushik Suresh for publicly releasing the used dataset comprising tweets related
to BTC on Kaggle.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AUC Area Under Curve

BERT Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers
BTC Bitcoin
ED Emotion Detection
ES Exponential Smoothing
FFT Fast Fourier Transform
GRU Gated Recurrent Unit
LSTM Long Short-Term Memory
LR Linear regression
MAE Mean Absolute Error
ML Machine Learning
MSE Mean Squared Error
NLP Natural Language Processing
RMSE Root Mean Squared Error
RNN Recurrent Neural Network
SA Sentiment Analysis
TCN Temporal Convolutional Network
VADER Valence Aware Dictionary and sEntiment Reasoner
References
1. Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008. Available online: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed
on 1 December 2022).
2. Patel, M.M.; Tanwar, S.; Gupta, R.; Kumar, N. A Deep Learning-based Cryptocurrency Price Prediction Scheme for Financial
Institutions. J. Inf. Secur. Appl. 2020, 55, 102583. [CrossRef]
3. Peterson, T. To the moon: A history of Bitcoin price manipulation. J. Forensic Investig. Account. 2021, 13, 2. [CrossRef]
4. Sovbetov, Y. Factors influencing cryptocurrency prices: Evidence from bitcoin, ethereum, dash, litcoin, and monero. J. Econ.
Financ. Anal. 2018, 2, 1–27.
5. Schilling, L.; Uhlig, H. Some simple bitcoin economics. J. Monet. Econ. 2019, 106, 16–26. [CrossRef]
6. Karau, S. Monetary Policy and Bitcoin. J. Int. Money Financ. 2023, 137, 102880. [CrossRef]
7. Vujičić, D.; Jagodić, D.; Rand̄ić, S. Blockchain technology, bitcoin and ethereum: A brief overview. In Proceedings of the 2018 17th
International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH), East Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 21–23 March 2018; p. 6.
[CrossRef]
8. Ciaian, P.; Rajcaniova, M.; d’Artis Kancs. The economics of BitCoin price formation. Appl. Econ. 2016, 48, 1799–1815. [CrossRef]
9. Mudassir, M.; Bennbaia, S.; Unal, D. Time-Series Forecasting of Bitcoin Prices Using High-Dimensional Features: A ML Approach;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; p. 15. [CrossRef]
10. Pano, T.; Kashef, R. A Complete VADER-Based Sentiment Analysis of Bitcoin (BTC) Tweets during the Era of COVID-19. Big
Data Cogn. Comput. 2020, 4, 33. [CrossRef]
11. Vella Critien, J.; Gatt, A.; Ellul, J. Bitcoin price change and trend prediction through twitter sentiment and data volume. J. Financ.
Innov. 2022, 8, 45. [CrossRef]
12. Pant, D.R.; Neupane, P.; Poudel, A.; Pokhrel, A.K.; Lama, B.K. Recurrent Neural Network Based Bitcoin Price Prediction by
Twitter Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Computing, Communication and
Security (ICCCS), Kathmandu, Nepal, 25–27 October 2018; pp. 128–132. [CrossRef]
13. Serafini, G.; Yi, P.; Zhang, Q.; Brambilla, M.; Wang, J.; Hu, Y.; Li, B. Sentiment-Driven Price Prediction of the Bitcoin based on
Statistical and Deep Learning Approaches. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks,
IJCNN, Glasgow, UK, 19–24 July 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
14. Wołk, K. Advanced social media sentiment analysis for short-term cryptocurrency price prediction. Expert Syst. 2020, 37, e12493.
[CrossRef]
15. Vyas, P.; Vyas, G.; Dhiman, G. RUemo—The Classification Framework for Russia-Ukraine War-Related Societal Emotions on
Twitter through Machine Learning. Algorithms 2023, 16, 69. [CrossRef]
16. Zhou, B.; Zou, L.; Mostafavi, A.; Lin, B.; Yang, M.; Gharaibeh, N.; Cai, H.; Abedin, J.; Mandal, D. VictimFinder: Harvesting rescue
requests in disaster response from social media with BERT. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2022, 95, 101824. . [CrossRef]
17. Mateen, M. Regulation in the Cryptocurrency Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA,
2023. Available online: https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/handle/10355/95309 (accessed on 18 April 2023).
18. Fu, S.; Wang, Q.; Yu, J.; Chen, S. FTX collapse: A Ponzi story. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2212.09436
19. Boutsoukis, A. Near Real-Time Cryptocurrency Sentiment Analysis. 2023. Available online: https://repository.ihu.edu.gr/
xmlui/bitstream/handle/11544/30143/a.boutsoukis_ds.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2023).
20. Akyildirim, E.; Aysan, A.F.; Cepni, O.; Darendeli, S.P.C. Do investor sentiments drive cryptocurrency prices? Econ. Lett. 2021,
206, 109980. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, H.J.; Hong, J.S.; Hwang, H.C.; Kim, S.M.; Han, D.H. Comparison of Psychological Status and Investment Style between
Bitcoin Investors and Share Investors. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 502295. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Das, N.; Sadhukhan, B.; Chatterjee, T.; Chakrabarti, S. Effect of public sentiment on stock market movement prediction during
the COVID-19 outbreak. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2022, 12, 92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Gurdgiev, C.; O’Loughlin, D. Herding and anchoring in cryptocurrency markets: Investor reaction to fear and uncertainty.
J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 2020, 25, 100271. [CrossRef]
24. Nandwani, P.; Verma, R. A review on sentiment analysis and emotion detection from text. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 2021, 11, 81.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Barberis, N.; Shleifer, A.; Vishny, R. A Model of Investor Sentiment. J. Financ. Econ. 1998, 49, 307–343. [CrossRef]
26. Hutto, C.; Gilbert, E. VADER: A Parsimonious Rule-Based Model for Sentiment Analysis of Social Media Text. Proc. Int. AAAI
Conf. Web Soc. Media 2014, 8, 216–225. [CrossRef]
27. Al-Shabi, M. Evaluating the performance of the most important Lexicons used to Sentiment analysis and opinions Mining.
IJCSNS 2020, 20, 1.
28. Baly, R.; El-Khoury, G.; Moukalled, R.; Aoun, R.; Hajj, H.; Shaban, K.B.; El-Hajj, W. Comparative Evaluation of Sentiment Analysis
Methods Across Arabic Dialects. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017, 117, 266–273. [CrossRef]
29. Devlin, J.; Chang, M.; Lee, K.; Toutanova, K. BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding.
In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language
Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2–7 June 2019; (Long and Short Papers); Burstein, J., Doran, C., Solorio, T.,
Eds.; Association for Computational Linguistics: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2019; Volume 1, pp. 4171–4186. [CrossRef]
30. Nguyen, D.Q.; Vu, T.; Nguyen, A.T. BERTweet: A pre-trained language model for English Tweets. In Proceedings of the 2020
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, Online, 16–20 November 2020;
pp. 9–14.
31. Liu, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Gao, J.; Xu, C. Forecast Methods for Time Series Data: A Survey. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 91896–91912. [CrossRef]
32. Lindemann, B.; Müller, T.; Vietz, H.; Jazdi, N.; Weyrich, M. A survey on long short-term memory networks for time series
prediction. Procedia Cirp 2021, 99, 650–655. [CrossRef]
33. Gers, F.A.; Eck, D.; Schmidhuber, J. Applying LSTM to Time Series Predictable through Time-Window Approaches. In Proceedings
of the Artificial Neural Networks—ICANN 2001, Vienna, Austria, 21–25 August 2001; Dorffner, G., Bischof, H., Hornik, K., Eds.;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2001; Volume 2130, pp. 669–676. [CrossRef]
34. Jaquart, P.; Köpke, S.; Weinhardt, C. Machine learning for cryptocurrency market prediction and trading. J. Financ. Data Sci. 2022,
8, 331–352. [CrossRef]
35. Uras, N.; Marchesi, L.; Marchesi, M.; Tonelli, R. Forecasting Bitcoin closing price series using linear regression and neural
networks models. Peerj Comput. Sci. 2020, 6, e279. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Hamayel, M.J.; Owda, A.Y. A Novel Cryptocurrency Price Prediction Model Using GRU, LSTM and bi-LSTM Machine Learning
Algorithms. AI 2021, 2, 477–496. [CrossRef]
37. Dimitriadou, A.; Gregoriou, A. Predicting Bitcoin Prices Using Machine Learning. Entropy 2023, 25, 777. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Birjali, M.; Kasri, M.; Hssane, A.B. A comprehensive survey on sentiment analysis: Approaches, challenges and trends. Knowl.
Based Syst. 2021, 226, 107134. [CrossRef]
39. Balci, S.; Demirci, G.M.; Demirhan, H.; Sarp, S. Sentiment Analysis Using State of the Art Machine Learning Techniques.
In Proceedings of the Digital Interaction and Machine Intelligence—Proceedings of MIDI’2021 - 9th Machine Intelligence and Digital
Interaction Conference, Warsaw, Poland, 9–10 December 2021; Biele, C., Kacprzyk, J., Kopec, W., Owsinski, J.W., Romanowski, A.,
Sikorski, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 440, pp. 34–42. [CrossRef]
40. Vyas, P.; Reisslein, M.; Rimal, B.P.; Vyas, G.; Basyal, G.P.; Muzumdar, P. Automated Classification of Societal Sentiments on
Twitter With Machine Learning. IEEE Trans. Technol. Soc. 2022, 3, 100–110. [CrossRef]
41. Hoque, M.U.; Lee, K.; Beyer, J.L.; Curran, S.R.; Gonser, K.S.; Lam, N.S.N.; Mihunov, V.V.; Wang, K. Analyzing Tweeting Patterns
and Public Engagement on Twitter During the Recognition Period of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study of Two U.S. States. IEEE
Access 2022, 10, 72879–72894. [CrossRef]
42. Aslam, N.; Xia, K.; Rustam, F.; Hameed, A.; Ashraf, I. Using Aspect-Level Sentiments for Calling App Recommendation with
Hybrid Deep-Learning Models. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8522. [CrossRef]
43. Balaji, P.; Haritha, D. An Ensemble Multi-Layered Sentiment Analysis Model (EMLSA) for Classifying the Complex Datasets. Int.
J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2023, 14. [CrossRef]
44. Loria, S. textblob Documentation. Release 0.15 2018, 2, 269.
45. Gujjar, J.P.; Kumar, H.P. Sentiment analysis: Textblob for decision making. Int. J. Sci. Res. Eng. Trends 2021, 7, 1097–1099.
46. Aljedaani, W.; Rustam, F.; Mkaouer, M.W.; Ghallab, A.; Rupapara, V.; Washington, P.B.; Lee, E.; Ashraf, I. Sentiment analysis on
Twitter data integrating TextBlob and deep learning models: The case of US airline industry. Knowl.-Based Syst. 2022, 255, 109780.
[CrossRef]
47. Aslam, N.; Rustam, F.; Lee, E.; Washington, P.B.; Ashraf, I. Sentiment Analysis and Emotion Detection on Cryptocurrency Related
Tweets Using Ensemble LSTM-GRU Model. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 39313–39324. [CrossRef]
48. Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Liu, B. Deep learning for sentiment analysis: A survey. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2018,
8, e1253. [CrossRef]
49. Dos Santos, C.; Gatti, M. Deep convolutional neural networks for sentiment analysis of short texts. In Proceedings of the COLING
2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers, Dublin, Ireland, 23–29 August 2014;
pp. 69–78.
50. Zou, Y.; Gui, T.; Zhang, Q.; Huang, X.J. A lexicon-based supervised attention model for neural sentiment analysis. In Proceedings
of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Santa Fe, NM, USA, 21–25 August 2018; pp. 868–877.
51. Pérez, J.M.; Giudici, J.C.; Luque, F. Pysentimiento: A Python Toolkit for Sentiment Analysis and SocialNLP tasks. arXiv 2021,
arXiv:2106.09462.
52. Swathi, T.; Kasiviswanath, N.; Rao, A. An optimal deep learning-based LSTM for stock price prediction using twitter sentiment
analysis. Appl. Intell. 2022, 52, 13675–13688. [CrossRef]
53. Mehtab, S.; Sen, J. A Robust Predictive Model for Stock Price Prediction Using Deep Learning and Natural Language Processing.
arXiv 2019, arXiv:1912.07700. [CrossRef]
54. Ye, Z.; Wu, Y.; Chen, H.; Pan, Y.; Jiang, Q. A Stacking Ensemble Deep Learning Model for Bitcoin Price Prediction Using Twitter
Comments on Bitcoin. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1307. [CrossRef]
55. Sattarov, O.; Jeon, H.S.; Oh, R.; Lee, J.D. Forecasting Bitcoin Price Fluctuation by Twitter Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of
the 2020 International Conference on Information Science and Communications Technologies (ICISCT), Tashkent, Uzbekistan,
4–6 November 2020; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
56. Oikonomopoulos, S.; Tzafilkou, K.; Karapiperis, D.; Verykios, V.S. Cryptocurrency Price Prediction using Social Media Sentiment
Analysis. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications, IISA 2022, Corfu,
Greece, 18–20 July 2022; Bourbakis, N.G., Tsihrintzis, G.A., Virvou, M., Eds.; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 1–8. [CrossRef]
57. Abraham, J.; Higdon, D.W.; Nelson, J.; Ibarra, J. Cryptocurrency Price Prediction Using Tweet Volumes and Sentiment Analysis.
Smu Data Sci. Rev. 2018, 1, 1.
58. Mittal, A.; Dhiman, V.; Singh, A.; Prakash, C. Short-Term Bitcoin Price Fluctuation Prediction Using Social Media and Web Search
Data. In Proceedings of the 2019 Twelfth International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3), Noida, India, 8–10 August
2019; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
59. Edgari, E.; Thiojaya, J.; Qomariyah, N.N. The Impact of Twitter Sentiment Analysis on Bitcoin Price during COVID-19 with
XGBoost. In Proceedings of the 2022 5th International Conference on Computing and Informatics (ICCI), New Cairo, Cairo,
Egypt, 9–10 March 2022; pp. 337–342. [CrossRef]
60. Hochreiter, S.; Schmidhuber, J. Long Short-Term Memory. Neural Comput. 1997, 9, 1735–1780. [CrossRef]
61. Lea, C.; Vidal, R.; Reiter, A.; Hager, G.D. Temporal Convolutional Networks: A Unified Approach to Action Segmentation. In
Proceedings of the Computer Vision–ECCV 2016 Workshops, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 8–10 and 15–16 October 2016.
62. Zeng, A.; Chen, M.; Zhang, L.; Xu, Q. Are Transformers Effective for Time Series Forecasting? arXiv 2022, arXiv:2205.13504.
63. Herzen, J.; Lässig, F.; Piazzetta, S.G.; Neuer, T.; Tafti, L.; Raille, G.; Pottelbergh, T.V.; Pasieka, M.; Skrodzki, A.; Huguenin, N.; et al.
Darts: User-Friendly Modern Machine Learning for Time Series. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2022, 23, 1–6.
64. Paszke, A.; Gross, S.; Chintala, S.; Chanan, G.; Yang, E.; DeVito, Z.; Lin, Z.; Desmaison, A.; Antiga, L.; Lerer, A. Automatic
Differentiation in Pytorch. 2017. Available online: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=BJJsrmfCZ (accessed on 9 April 2023).
65. Ferdiansyah, F.; Othman, S.H.; Zahilah Raja Md Radzi, R.; Stiawan, D.; Sazaki, Y.; Ependi, U. A LSTM-Method for Bitcoin
Price Prediction: A Case Study Yahoo Finance Stock Market. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science (ICECOS), Batam, Indonesia, 2–3 October 2019; pp. 206–210. [CrossRef]
66. Guo, H.; Zhang, D.; Liu, S.; Wang, L.; Ding, Y. Bitcoin price forecasting: A perspective of underlying blockchain transactions.
Decis. Support Syst. 2021, 151, 113650. [CrossRef]
67. Sharma, A.; Bhuriya, D.; Singh, U. Survey of stock market prediction using machine learning approach. In Proceedings of the
2017 International conference of Electronics, Communication and Aerospace Technology (ICECA), Coimbatore, India, 20–22 April
2017; Volume 2, pp. 506–509. [CrossRef]
68. Awan, M.J.; Rahim, M.S.M.; Nobanee, H.; Munawar, A.; Yasin, A.; Zain, A.M. Social Media and Stock Market Prediction: A Big
Data Approach. Comput. Mater. Contin. 2021, 67, 2569–2583. [CrossRef]
69. Jr., E.S.G.; Acar, Y. Fitting the damped trend method of exponential smoothing. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2019, 70, 926–930. [CrossRef]
70. Chatfield, C. The Holt-Winters Forecasting Procedure. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. (Appl. Stat.) 1978, 27, 264–279. [CrossRef]
71. Musbah, H.; El-Hawary, M.; Aly, H. Identifying Seasonality in Time Series by Applying Fast Fourier Transform. In Proceedings
of the 2019 IEEE Electrical Power and Energy Conference (EPEC), Montreal, QC, Canada, 16–18 October 2019; pp. 1–4. [CrossRef]
72. Brigham, E.O.; Morrow, R.E. The fast Fourier transform. IEEE Spectr. 1967, 4, 63–70. [CrossRef]
73. Bai, S.; Kolter, J.Z.; Koltun, V. An Empirical Evaluation of Generic Convolutional and Recurrent Networks for Sequence Modeling.
arXiv 2018, arXiv:1803.01271.
74. Schneider, A.; Hommel, G.; Blettner, M. Linear Regression Analysis Part 14 of a Series on Evaluation of Scientific Publications.
Dtsch. Ärzteblatt Int. 2010, 107, 776–82. [CrossRef]
75. Ekaputri, A.P.; Akbar, S. Financial News Sentiment Analysis using Modified VADER for Stock Price Prediction. In Proceedings of
the 2022 9th International Conference on Advanced Informatics: Concepts, Theory and Applications (ICAICTA), Tokoname,
Japan, 28–29 September 2022; pp. 1–6. [CrossRef]
76. Hutto, C. GitHub—cjhutto/vaderSentiment: VADER Sentiment Analysis. Available online: https://github.com/cjhutto/
vaderSentiment (accessed on 24 November 2022).
77. Nakov, P.; Ritter, A.; Rosenthal, S.; Sebastiani, F.; Stoyanov, V. SemEval-2016 task 4: Sentiment analysis in Twitter. arXiv 2019,
arXiv:1912.01973.
78. del Arco, F.M.P.; Strapparava, C.; Lopez, L.A.U.; Martín-Valdivia, M.T. EmoEvent: A multilingual emotion corpus based on
different events. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, Marseille, France, 11–16 May 2020;
pp. 1492–1498.
79. Binance. Binance API. 2022. Available online: https://www.binance.com/en/binance-api (accessed on 15 October 2022).
80. Kash. Bitcoin Tweets. 2021. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/kaushiksuresh147/bitcoin-tweets (accessed on
1 November 2022).
81. Lopez, F. Language Detection Library in Python. 2017. Available online: https://github.com/fedelopez77/langdetect (accessed
on 20 November 2022).
82. Robertson, S.E.; Zaragoza, H. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond. Found. Trends Inf. Retr. 2009, 3, 333–389.
[CrossRef]
83. Muralidhar, N.; Muthiah, S.; Butler, P.; Jain, M.; Yu, Y.; Burne, K.; Li, W.; Jones, D.; Arunachalam, P.; McCormick, H.S.; et al. Using
AntiPatterns to avoid MLOps Mistakes. arXiv 2021, arXiv:2107.00079.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

BDCC 07 00137 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BDCC 07 00137 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BDCC 07 00137 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

big data and

Big Data Cogn. Comput. 2023, 7, 137. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7030137 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/bdcc

2.1. Time Series Forecasting for Cryptocurrencies

2.2. Sentiment Analysis

2.3. Combining Time Series Forecasting with Sentiment Scores

Ref. Year Pred. Target Granularity Model Additional Features

2.4. Research Gaps and Novel Contributions

3.1. Forecasting BTC Price

3.1.2. Long Short-Term Memory Network

3.1.3. Temporal Convolutional Networks

3.1.5. Linear Regression

3.2. Sentiment Analysis

3.2.1. VADER Sentiment Analysis

3.2.2. BERT-Based Sentiment Analysis

3.3. Data Acquisition and Processing

3.3.1. Data Collection

3.3.2. Text Pre-Processing

3.3.3. Data Aggregation

3.3.4. Data Source Merging and Splitting

4. Evaluation and Discussion

Metric LSTM TCN D-Linear LR ES FFT Drift Mean

SA Method Scores Metric LSTM TCN D-Linear LR

SA Method Weighting Metric LSTM TCN D-Linear LR

4.1. Model Comparison

4.2. Feature Comparison

4.3. Weighting Comparison

4.4. Comparison with Other Research Works

5. Conclusions and Future Work

AUC Area Under Curve

You might also like