| Hector Jasso
|
2
|
 |
|
04-29-2001 06:58 PM ET (US)
|
|
Edited by author 04-29-2001 06:58 PM
I agree with Greg's comment on the time scale of the experiments. My concern about that is that if one does not have an infinite credit (an assumption the authors make in testing their model), then false positives and false negatives can have a large impact. For example, take the case with the Timer Warner/AOL merge that happened this (last?) year. There was a lot of talk about whether the merger would happen. So, this would result in many predictions of steep increase, because the news were constantly talking about a possible merge. Let's assume that as long as the merge is not approved, any sell/buy action results in random gains, corresponding to daily fluctuations of the market, with no particular trend. When the merge is approved, what is the actual gain? I would say small compared to all the buys and sells that the system did over the months of speculation about a possible merge. I can think of many examples when a decision is "in the air" until someone confirms it, but the important piece of information is the confirmation, not the speculation.
But maybe more important than that is whether specific words represent actual pieces of information: I wonder if the system can differentiate between a note saying that the new Pentium chip "has no bugs" and one saying that it "has bugs." They both have the words "has" and "bugs"!
|