When Lexical Change Misleads: Rethinking Dynamic Topic Model Evaluation with Traditional and LLM-Based Metrics

The recent success of large pre-trained language models (PLMs) has motivated their integration into topic modeling. However, PLM-augmented topic models differ from classical co-occurrence models such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) not only in performance, but also in the type of semantic structure they capture. We formalize this distinction along two psycholinguistic axes: thematic relatedness (dog/bone) and taxonomic similarity (dog/wolf). To measure both axes over topic words, we construct a large synthetic benchmark of word pairs using LLM-based annotation and train a neural scorer on it. Across multiple corpora and model families, the scorer places different topic-model families at distinct positions within the joint similarity-relatedness space. The two scores further predict downstream task performance: tasks requiring similarity benefit from similarity-rich topics, whereas tasks requiring relatedness benefit from the converse, and excessive emphasis on either axis degrades performance on tasks aligned with the opposing semantic structure. Neither axis is uniformly beneficial. Measuring both therefore provides a practical, model-agnostic diagnostic for evaluating the semantic structure captured by topic models.

Topic models uncover latent thematic structures in text corpora, yet evaluating their quality remains challenging, particularly in specialized domains. Existing methods often rely on automated metrics like topic coherence and diversity, which may not fully align with human judgment. Human evaluation tasks, such as word intrusion, provide valuable insights but are costly and primarily validated on general-domain corpora. This paper introduces Topic Word Mixing (TWM), a novel human evaluation task assessing inter-topic distinctness by testing whether annotators can distinguish between word sets from single or mixed topics. TWM complements word intrusion's focus on intra-topic coherence and provides a human-grounded counterpart to diversity metrics. We evaluate six topic models - both statistical and embedding-based (LDA, NMF, Top2Vec, BERTopic, CFMF, CFMF-emb) - comparing automated metrics with human evaluation methods based on nearly 4,000 annotations from a domain-specific corpus of philosophy of science publications. Our findings reveal that word intrusion and coherence metrics do not always align, particularly in specialized domains, and that TWM captures human-perceived distinctness while appearing to align with diversity metrics. We release the annotated dataset and task generation code. This work highlights the need for evaluation frameworks bridging automated and human assessments, particularly for domain-specific corpora.

Traditional topic models are effective at uncovering latent themes in large text collections. However, due to their reliance on bag-of-words representations, they struggle to capture semantically abstract features. While some neural variants use richer representations, they are similarly constrained by expressing topics as word lists, which limits their ability to articulate complex topics. We introduce Mechanistic Topic Models (MTMs), a class of topic models that operate on interpretable features learned by sparse autoencoders (SAEs). By defining topics over this semantically rich space, MTMs can reveal deeper conceptual themes with expressive feature descriptions. Moreover, uniquely among topic models, MTMs enable controllable text generation using topic steering vectors. To properly evaluate MTM topics against word list approaches, we propose topic judge, an LLM-based pairwise comparison evaluation framework. Across eight datasets, MTMs match or exceed traditional and neural baselines on coherence metrics, are consistently preferred by topic judge, and enable effective LLM steering.