Paper detail

Improving Reliability of Latent Dirichlet Allocation by Assessing Its Stability Using Clustering Techniques on Replicated Runs

For organizing large text corpora topic modeling provides useful tools. A widely used method is Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA), a generative probabilistic model which models single texts in a collection of texts as mixtures of latent topics. The assignments of words to topics rely on initial values such that generally the outcome of LDA is not fully reproducible. In addition, the reassignment via Gibbs Sampling is based on conditional distributions, leading to different results in replicated runs on the same text data. This fact is often neglected in everyday practice. We aim to improve the reliability of LDA results. Therefore, we study the stability of LDA by comparing assignments from replicated runs. We propose to quantify the similarity of two generated topics by a modified Jaccard coefficient. Using such similarities, topics can be clustered. A new pruning algorithm for hierarchical clustering results based on the idea that two LDA runs create pairs of similar topics is proposed. This approach leads to the new measure S-CLOP ({\bf S}imilarity of multiple sets by {\bf C}lustering with {\bf LO}cal {\bf P}runing) for quantifying the stability of LDA models. We discuss some characteristics of this measure and illustrate it with an application to real data consisting of newspaper articles from \textit{USA Today}. Our results show that the measure S-CLOP is useful for assessing the stability of LDA models or any other topic modeling procedure that characterize its topics by word distributions. Based on the newly proposed measure for LDA stability, we propose a method to increase the reliability and hence to improve the reproducibility of empirical findings based on topic modeling. This increase in reliability is obtained by running the LDA several times and taking as prototype the most representative run, that is the LDA run with highest average similarity to all other runs.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.