Reliability of Topic Modeling

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.23186v2
• Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 22:36:52 GMT
• Title: Reliability of Topic Modeling
• Authors: Kayla Schroeder, Zach Wood-Doughty,
• Abstract summary: We show that the standard practice for quantifying topic model reliability fails to capture essential aspects of the variation in two widely-used topic models. On synthetic and real-world data, we show that McDonald's $omega$ provides the best encapsulation of reliability.
• Score: 0.3759936323189418
• License:
• Abstract: Topic models allow researchers to extract latent factors from text data and use those variables in downstream statistical analyses. However, these methodologies can vary significantly due to initialization differences, randomness in sampling procedures, or noisy data. Reliability of these methods is of particular concern as many researchers treat learned topic models as ground truth for subsequent analyses. In this work, we show that the standard practice for quantifying topic model reliability fails to capture essential aspects of the variation in two widely-used topic models. Drawing from a extensive literature on measurement theory, we provide empirical and theoretical analyses of three other metrics for evaluating the reliability of topic models. On synthetic and real-world data, we show that McDonald's $\omega$ provides the best encapsulation of reliability. This metric provides an essential tool for validation of topic model methodologies that should be a standard component of any topic model-based research.

Related papers

• GenBench: A Benchmarking Suite for Systematic Evaluation of Genomic Foundation Models [56.63218531256961]
  We introduce GenBench, a benchmarking suite specifically tailored for evaluating the efficacy of Genomic Foundation Models. GenBench offers a modular and expandable framework that encapsulates a variety of state-of-the-art methodologies. We provide a nuanced analysis of the interplay between model architecture and dataset characteristics on task-specific performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-01T08:01:05Z)
• Are Neural Topic Models Broken? [81.15470302729638]
  We study the relationship between automated and human evaluation of topic models. We find that neural topic models fare worse in both respects compared to an established classical method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T14:38:50Z)
• Learning Topic Models: Identifiability and Finite-Sample Analysis [6.181048261489101]
  We propose a maximum likelihood estimator (MLE) of latent topics based on a specific integrated likelihood. We conclude with empirical studies on both simulated and real datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T16:35:42Z)
• A comprehensive comparative evaluation and analysis of Distributional Semantic Models [61.41800660636555]
  We perform a comprehensive evaluation of type distributional vectors, either produced by static DSMs or obtained by averaging the contextualized vectors generated by BERT. The results show that the alleged superiority of predict based models is more apparent than real, and surely not ubiquitous. We borrow from cognitive neuroscience the methodology of Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) to inspect the semantic spaces generated by distributional models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-20T15:18:06Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)
• Comparing hundreds of machine learning classifiers and discrete choice models in predicting travel behavior: an empirical benchmark [6.815730801645785]
  Many studies have compared machine learning (ML) and discrete choice models (DCMs) in predicting travel demand. These studies often lack generalizability as they compare models deterministically without considering contextual variations. This benchmark study compares two large-scale data sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-01T19:45:47Z)
• Interpretable Multi-dataset Evaluation for Named Entity Recognition [110.64368106131062]
  We present a general methodology for interpretable evaluation for the named entity recognition (NER) task. The proposed evaluation method enables us to interpret the differences in models and datasets, as well as the interplay between them. By making our analysis tool available, we make it easy for future researchers to run similar analyses and drive progress in this area.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T10:53:27Z)
• Improving the Reconstruction of Disentangled Representation Learners via Multi-Stage Modeling [54.94763543386523]
  Current autoencoder-based disentangled representation learning methods achieve disentanglement by penalizing the ( aggregate) posterior to encourage statistical independence of the latent factors. We present a novel multi-stage modeling approach where the disentangled factors are first learned using a penalty-based disentangled representation learning method. Then, the low-quality reconstruction is improved with another deep generative model that is trained to model the missing correlated latent variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-25T18:51:15Z)
• Amortized Bayesian model comparison with evidential deep learning [0.12314765641075436]
  We propose a novel method for performing Bayesian model comparison using specialized deep learning architectures. Our method is purely simulation-based and circumvents the step of explicitly fitting all alternative models under consideration to each observed dataset. We show that our method achieves excellent results in terms of accuracy, calibration, and efficiency across the examples considered in this work.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-22T15:15:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.