Recent advances in neural topic models with pre-trained language models (PLMs) have achieved strong performance by leveraging general-domain pre-training, yet their topic interpretability often degrades on specialized corpora. This limitation primarily stems from the geometry of the embedding space, where domain-specific terms unseen during pre-training collapse into an indistinguishable region, and neither domain-specific re-training, word-level graph enrichment, nor parameter-efficient fine-tuning can restructure this space without inheriting the capacity ceiling of the underlying encoder. Our key insight is that a learnable graph layer operating on token-level PLM embeddings can acquire corpus-specific semantic structure that the frozen encoder lacks, because token-level graphs preserve document-local context that word-level representations discard and joint optimization with the topic objective reshapes embedding geometry directly from target-domain evidence. We instantiate this insight as DARTopic, a domain-agnostic framework that constructs token-level semantic graphs from frozen PLM embeddings and jointly trains a GNN encoder with topic inference. Across three benchmarks spanning general, biomedical, and legal domains, DARTopic consistently outperforms strong baselines in topic coherence and document clus- tering without any encoder fine-tuning, while demonstrating robustness to PLM choice and favorable runtime efficiency over fine-tuning based alternatives.
Table 1: Comparison of topics generated by FASTopic ( Wu et al., 2024b ) and DARTopic on BioASQ dataset. We report low-coherence words in RED font.
Figure 1: The overall architecture of our proposed DARTopic framework. denotes frozen parameters, while denotes trainable parameters.
Dataset
Domain
Metric
ProdLDA
FASTopic
BERTopic
ZeroShotTM
CombinedTM
NeuroMax
PVTM
GINopic
CGTM
DARTopic (ours)
20NG
General
NPMI
0.1581
0.2624
0.2300
0.2604
0.1670
0.1833
0.2707
0.2172
0.2520
0.2736
TU
0.7613
0.8813
0.4547
0.9227
0.7853
1.0000
0.9133
0.4747
0.5227
0.9360
TQ
0.1203
0.2313
0.1046
0.2403
0.1311
0.1833
0.2473
0.1031
0.1317
0.2561
BioASQ
Biomedical
NPMI
0.0142
0.0789
0.1653
0.1448
0.0120
0.0094
0.1596
0.0213
0.1377
0.1641
TU
0.8213
0.4093
0.7320
0.8640
0.8080
1.0000
0.9730
0.8013
0.6947
0.9760
TQ
0.0117
0.0323
0.1210
0.1251
0.0097
0.0094
0.1553
0.0171
0.0957
0.1602
Table 2: Main results on topic-word distribution quality across three domains: general (20NG), biomedical (BioASQ) and legal (Bills). The best performance in each row is shown in bold and the second-best is underlined .
NPMI
TU
TQ
Purity
NMI
MiniLM
0.1641
0.9760
0.1602
0.5235
0.3833
Roberta-large
0.1660
0.9680
0.1606
0.4738
0.3492
Qwen-0.6B
0.1644
0.9653
0.1587
0.4829
0.3555
BioBERT
0.1690
0.9693
0.1638
0.5061
0.3696
Table 3: Comparison of DARTopic performance on BioASQ dataset with different pre-trained models.
20NG
BioASQ
Purity
NMI
Purity
NMI
ProdLDA
0.1186
0.1652
0.2032
0.1030
BERTopic
0.4347
0.3369
0.4666
0.3205
FASTopic
0.4743
0.4089
0.4339
0.3650
ZeroshotTM
0.4555
0.3657
0.3217
0.3312
CombinedTM
0.1963
0.2262
0.2466
0.1566
Table 4: Performance comparison on document clustering task using document-topic distribution vector. The best-performing method is highlighted in bold and second-best performance is underlined .
Methods
PLMs
NPMI
TU
TQ
Purity
NMI
FASTopic
MiniLM
0.0789
0.4093
0.0323
0.4339
0.3650
FASTopic
BioBERT
0.1146
0.9920
0.1137
0.4439
0.3375
ZeroshotTM
MiniLM
0.1448
0.8640
0.1251
0.3217
0.3312
ZeroshotTM
BioBERT
0.1628
0.9680
0.1576
0.4967
0.3652
CombinedTM
MiniLM
0.0120
0.8080
0.0097
0.2466
0.1566
CombinedTM
BioBERT
0.0130
0.7813
0.0102
0.1108
0.1157
Table 5: PLM dependency of PLM-powered neural topic models performance on BioASQ dataset. The better result is highlighted in bold for each metric.
20NG
BioASQ
Bills
Training
Inference
Training
Inference
Training
Inference
PVTM
13.55s
12.79s
2.55s
2.22s
9.82s
9.56s
DARTopic
7.67s
7.65s
2.59s
2.44s
8.67s
8.52s
Table 6: Runtime performance comparison with PVTM.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Domain
#Docs
#Vocab
Avg. length
#Labels
20NewsGroup
General
16,309
1,612
48.02
20
BioASQ
Biomedical
19,448
2,000
7.44
20
Bills
Legal
18,945
2,000
76.28
–
Appendix
Table 7: Statistics of the preprocessed benchmark datasets
Graph Structure
20NG
BioASQ
NPMI
TU
TQ
NPMI
TU
TQ
1-hop
0.2643
0.9307
0.2460
0.1583
0.9600
0.1520
2-hop
0.2667
0.9400
0.2507
0.1687
0.9600
0.1620
3-hop
0.2655
0.9227
0.2449
0.1659
0.9693
0.1608
Semantic (ours)
0.2736
0.9360
0.2561
0.1641
0.9760
0.1602
Appendix
Table 8: Analysis of different graph construction methods in our proposed DARTopic framework. The best-performing method is highlighted in bold .
20NG
BioASQ
Bills
NPMI
TU
TQ
NPMI
TU
TQ
NPMI
TU
TQ
τ = 0.1
0.2670
0.9320
0.2488
0.1668
0.9693
0.1617
0.2503
0.9307
0.2329
τ = 0.2
0.2736
0.9360
0.2561
0.1641
0.9760
0.1602
0.2545
0.9160
0.2331
τ = 0.3
0.2689
0.9307
0.2502
0.1737
0.9533
0.1656
0.2685
0.9240
0.2481
τ = 0.4
0.2647
0.9400
0.2488
0.1609
0.9640
0.1551
0.2489
0.9173
0.2283
Appendix
Table 9: Analysis of graph construction hyperparameter in DARTopic .