Search for: All records

Topic model evaluation, like evaluation of other unsupervised methods, can be contentious. However, the field has coalesced around automated estimates of topic coherence, which rely on the frequency of word co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Contemporary neural topic models surpass classical ones according to these metrics. At the same time, topic model evaluation suffers from a validation gap: automated coherence, developed for classical models, has not been validated using human experimentation for neural models. In addition, a meta-analysis of topic modeling literature reveals a substantial standardization gap in automated topic modeling benchmarks. To address the validation gap, we compare automated coherence with the two most widely accepted human judgment tasks: topic rating and word intrusion. To address the standardization gap, we systematically evaluate a dominant classical model and two state-of-the-art neural models on two commonly used datasets. Automated evaluations declare a winning model when corresponding human evaluations do not, calling into question the validity of fully automatic evaluations independent of human judgments. 

Abstract: Topic models are often used to identify human-interpretable topics to help make sense of large document collections. We use knowledge distillation to combine the best attributes of probabilistic topic models and pretrained transformers. Our modular method can be straightforwardly applied with any neural topic model to improve topic quality, which we demonstrate using two models having disparate architectures, obtaining state-of-the-art topic coherence. We show that our adaptable framework not only improves performance in the aggregate over all estimated topics, as is commonly reported, but also in head-to-head comparisons of aligned topics.