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

Abstract:Dynamic topic models capture evolving word distributions, but traditional coherence metrics may fail when vocabulary changes while semantic meaning persists. We evaluate 120 topics from CoNTM and DLDA across NYT, DBLP, and arXiv, using three human annotators and Low, Medium, and High lexical-change categories. Traditional temporal coherence shows highly variable agreement with human judgments ($\rho$=-0.256 to 0.614). In contrast, LLM-based semantic similarity agrees strongly with human semantic judgments for CoNTM on NYT ($\rho$=0.609), DBLP ($\rho$=0.721), and arXiv ($\rho$=0.502), but is less consistent for DLDA. Lexical-change stratification reveals variation hidden by aggregate evaluation. We therefore advocate lexical-change-aware evaluation, jointly reporting traditional coherence and LLM-based semantic measures as complementary rather than interchangeable signals.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2608.13835 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2608.13835v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.13835 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.