@inproceedings{prouteau-etal-2026-numbers,
title = "When Numbers Tell Half the Story: Human-Metric Alignment in Topic Model Evaluation",
author = "Prouteau, Thibault and
Lareau, Francis and
Dugue, Nicolas and
Lamirel, Jean-Charles and
Malaterre, Christophe",
editor = "Piperidis, Stelios and
Bel, N{\'u}ria and
van den Heuvel, Henk and
Ide, Nancy and
Krek, Simon and
Toral, Antonio",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference",
month = may,
year = "2026",
address = "Palma de Mallorca, Spain",
publisher = "ELRA Language Resource Association",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.474/",
doi = "10.63317/387fiwstpipw",
pages = "5970--5980",
abstract = "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."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="prouteau-etal-2026-numbers">
<titleInfo>
<title>When Numbers Tell Half the Story: Human-Metric Alignment in Topic Model Evaluation</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Thibault</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Prouteau</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Francis</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lareau</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nicolas</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Dugue</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Jean-Charles</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Lamirel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Christophe</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Malaterre</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2026-05</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Stelios</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Piperidis</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Núria</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Henk</namePart>
<namePart type="family">van den Heuvel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nancy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ide</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Simon</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Krek</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Antonio</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Toral</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>ELRA Language Resource Association</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Palma de Mallorca, Spain</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>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.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">prouteau-etal-2026-numbers</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.63317/387fiwstpipw</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.474/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2026-05</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>5970</start>
<end>5980</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T When Numbers Tell Half the Story: Human-Metric Alignment in Topic Model Evaluation
%A Prouteau, Thibault
%A Lareau, Francis
%A Dugue, Nicolas
%A Lamirel, Jean-Charles
%A Malaterre, Christophe
%Y Piperidis, Stelios
%Y Bel, Núria
%Y van den Heuvel, Henk
%Y Ide, Nancy
%Y Krek, Simon
%Y Toral, Antonio
%S Proceedings of the Fifteenth Language Resources and Evaluation Conference
%D 2026
%8 May
%I ELRA Language Resource Association
%C Palma de Mallorca, Spain
%F prouteau-etal-2026-numbers
%X 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.
%R 10.63317/387fiwstpipw
%U https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.474/
%U https://doi.org/10.63317/387fiwstpipw
%P 5970-5980
Markdown (Informal)
[When Numbers Tell Half the Story: Human-Metric Alignment in Topic Model Evaluation](https://aclanthology.org/2026.lrec-1.474/) (Prouteau et al., LREC 2026)
ACL