Question: In what steps do they add the Wordnet data?
Evidence: For evaluating topics with automatic quality measures, we used several English text collections and one Russian collection (Table TABREF7 ). We experiment with three thesauri: WordNet (155 thousand entries), information-retrieval thesaurus of the European Union EuroVoc (15161 terms), and Russian thesaurus RuThes (115 thousand entries) BIBREF19 .
At the preprocessing step, documents were processed by morphological analyzers. Also, we extracted noun groups as described in BIBREF16 . As baselines, we use the unigram LDA topic model and LDA topic model with added 1000 ngrams with maximal NC-value BIBREF20 extracted from the collection under analysis.
As it was found before BIBREF14 , BIBREF16 , the addition of ngrams without accounting relations between their components considerably worsens the perplexity because of the vocabulary growth (for perplexity the less is the better) and practically does not change other automatic quality measures (Table 2).
We add the Wordnet data in the following steps. At the first step, we include WordNet synonyms (including multiword expressions) into the proposed similarity sets (LDA-Sim+WNsyn). At this step, frequencies of synonyms found in the same document are summed up in process LDA topic learning as described in Algorithm SECREF3 . We can see that the kernel uniqueness becomes very low, topics are very close to each other in content (Table 2: LDA-Sim+WNsyn). At the second step, we add word direct relatives (hyponyms, hypernyms, etc.) to similarity sets. Now the frequencies of semantically related words are added up enhancing the contribution into all topics of the current document.
The Table 2 shows that these two steps lead to great degradation of the topic model in most measures in comparison to the initial unigram model: uniqueness of kernels abruptly decreases, perplexity at the second step grows by several times (Table 2: LDA-Sim+WNsynrel). It is evident that at this step the model has a poor quality. When we look at the topics, the cause of the problem seems to be clear. We can see the overgeneralization of the obtained topics. The topics are built around very general words such as "person", "organization", "year", etc. These words were initially frequent in the collection and then received additional frequencies from their frequent synonyms and related words.
Then we suppose that these general words were used in texts to discuss specific events and objects, therefore, we change the constructions of the similarity sets in the following way: we do not add word hyponyms to its similarity set. Thus, hyponyms, which are usually more specific and concrete, should obtain additional frequencies from upper synsets and increase their contributions into the document topics. But the frequencies and contribution of hypernyms into the topic of the document are not changed. And we see the great improvement of the model quality: the kernel uniqueness considerably improves, perplexity decreases to levels comparable with the unigram model, topic coherence characteristics also improve for most collections (Table 2:LDA-Sim+WNsynrel/hyp).
We further use the WordNet-based similarity sets with n-grams having the same components as described in BIBREF16 . All measures significantly improve for all collections (Table 2:LDA-Sim+WNsr/hyp+Ngrams). At the last step, we try to apply the same approach to ngrams that was previously utilized to hyponym-hypernym relations: frequencies of shorter ngrams and words are summed to frequencies of longer ngrams but not vice versa. In this case we try to increase the contribution of more specific longer ngrams into topics. It can be seen (Table 2) that the kernel uniqueness grows significantly, at this step it is 1.3-1.6 times greater than for the baseline models achieving 0.76 on the ACL collection (Table 2:LDA-Sim+WNsr/hyp+Ngrams/l).
At the second series of the experiments, we applied EuroVoc information retrieval thesaurus to two European Union collections: Europarl and JRC. In content, the EuroVoc thesaurus is much smaller than WordNet, it contains terms from economic and political domains and does not include general abstract words. The results are shown in Table 3. It can be seen that inclusion of EuroVoc synsets improves the topic coherence and increases kernel uniqueness (in contrast to results with WordNet). Adding ngrams further improves the topic coherence and kernel uniqueness.
At last we experimented with the Russian banking collection and utilized RuThes thesaurus. In this case we obtained improvement already on RuThes synsets and again adding ngrams further improved topic coherence and kernel uniqueness (Table 4).
It is worth noting that adding ngrams sometimes worsens the TC-NPMI measure, especially on the JRC collection. This is due to the fact that in these evaluation frameworks, the topics' top elements contain a lot of multiword expressions, which rarely occur in Wikipedia, used for the coherence calculation, therefore the utilized automatic coherence measures can have insufficient evidence for correct estimates.
We add the Wordnet data in the following steps. At the first step, we include WordNet synonyms (including multiword expressions) into the proposed similarity sets (LDASim+WNsyn). At this step, frequencies of synonyms found in the same document are summed up in process LDA topic learning as described in Algorithm 1.We can see that the kernel uniqueness becomes very low, topics are very close to each other in content (Table 2: LDA-Sim+WNsyn). At the second step, we add word direct relatives (hyponyms, hypernyms, etc.) to similarity sets.
Answer: Include WordNet synonyms into the proposed similarity sets, add word direct relatives to similarity sets.