Evidence for or against the Efficient Market Hypothesis in financial markets and the currently dominant view

Question

The Efficient Market Hypothesis seems to draw quite a lot of attention in popular debates, and in general during discussions on Behavioral Finance, where it is often seen as not entirely correct.

I wanted to know if within the Economics community, there is a consensus on the general empirical validity of the theory, or if the view is that it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't, do Economists have satisfactory knowledge as of now, on under which conditions it does not work and what exactly are the deviations in these cases.

As opinion-based questions are not to be asked in this website, I am interested in papers or other academic material summarizing the current empirical evidence for and against the EMH, or maybe a list of such summaries/ literature reviews that can give me a fuller picture.

Answer 1

The abstract of EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS by Milјan Leković:

The concept of an efficient financial market, in literature known as efficient market hypothesis (EMH), has had a long and difficult development path from the idea itself to its final conception, as one of the central paradigms in modern finance. It has been tested and critically reviewed for decades, and the two basic types of problems it has encountered are theoretical paradoxes and market anomalies. The aim of the paper is to examine the validity of EMH through various financial market efficiency tests and the results of previous research. The intention is to answer the question of whether, despite theoretical paradoxes and market anomalies, the notion of validity can be attributed to the concept of an efficient financial market. In this regard, the paper presents plenty of evidence for and against the validity of weak, semi-strong, and strong form of EMH, to conclude that, even after more than half a century of research, financial literature has not reached a consensus on the presence or absence of the validity of this hypothesis.