AI 中文总结
本研究利用Polymarket数据，通过分类实验发现评论注意力可预测交易活动，评论内容含方向信息，但评论对市场无明确因果效应。
AI 中文摘要
预测市场将交易与对同一事件的公开讨论相结合。我们考察了源自评论的信号是否能预测后续活动、买入方向以及领先结果的变化。对79个非政治性Polymarket市场进行的相关性扫描，指导了六项分类实验，比较了评论特征、交易特征及其组合。在包含评论的实时区块中，注意力在预测18小时内的密集交易方面几乎与交易历史相当（PR-AUC 0.786对比0.790，基线患病率为0.606），其相对优势集中在短期市场。评论内容携带方向性信息：在53个评分市场中的43个中，毒性（toxicity）对未来买入方向的排序优于随机水平，而将注意力、情感和立场添加到流量历史中，使ROC-AUC从0.780提升至0.788。领导权变更主要由市场状态预测。在27个可评估市场中的23个中，反转前立场（stance）转向反对领导者，但在单个区块预测中未带来明显改进。这些结果区分了注意力与方向性支持及价格不确定性。它们建立了与讨论和交易响应共享信息相一致的预测关联，但未确定评论对市场的因果效应。
英文摘要
Prediction markets combine trading with public discussion of the same events. We examine whether comment-derived signals predict subsequent activity, buying direction, and changes in the leading outcome. A correlation sweep across 79 non-political Polymarket markets guides six classification experiments comparing comment features, trading features, and their combinations. On live blocks containing comments, attention nearly matches trading history in predicting heavy trading within 18 hours (PR-AUC 0.786 versus 0.790, against prevalence 0.606), with its relative advantage concentrated in short markets. Comment content carries directional information: toxicity ranks future buying direction above chance in 43 of 53 scored markets, while adding attention, sentiment, and stance to flow history increases ROC-AUC from 0.780 to 0.788. Leadership changes are predicted primarily by market state. Stance shifts against the leader before reversals in 23 of 27 evaluable markets, but adds no clear improvement in individual-block forecasting. These results distinguish attention from directional support and price uncertainty. They establish predictive associations consistent with discussion and trading responding to shared information, without identifying a causal effect of comments on markets.
Comments8 pages, 1 figure
