topica-analysis

name

topica-analysis

description

Working guide for an LLM agent helping a social scientist run a topic-modeling analysis with the topica Python library — building a defensible corpus, choosing and justifying K, fitting a model, validating it, estimating covariate effects with honest uncertainty, and reporting results. Use when the user wants to USE topica to analyze a text corpus (not extend the library). The companion developer skill for adding a model is add-topic-model.

Using topica well

This is the working guide for an LLM agent (Claude Code, Cursor, or similar) helping a social scientist run topic models with topica. It is a working guide, not an API reference; the API lives at https://nealcaren.github.io/topica/. Read it before you write code that fits a model or reports a result. If instead you are extending topica (adding a model, a diagnostic, or a binding), this is the wrong guide — use the add-topic-model skill and CONTRIBUTING-MODELS.md.

The one idea to carry through everything below: topica and the agent supply the mechanics and the honest diagnostics; the researcher owns the theory. A topic model is a measurement instrument, not a discovery oracle. The decisions that make a topic-model paper credible are theoretical, and they are the researcher's: what the corpus represents, how many topics is the right granularity for the question, what each topic means, which covariates belong in the model, and whether a result is substantively interesting. Your job is to make those decisions cheap to act on and hard to get wrong, to surface uncertainty the researcher might otherwise miss, and to refuse to manufacture certainty that the data does not support. When one of those theory-owned decisions comes up, name it and hand it back. Do not quietly pick K because a metric peaked there.

What topica is, in one paragraph

topica is a Python topic-modeling library with a Rust core. It brings the models that used to be split across R (stm, keyATM) and Java (MALLET) into one place, runs them fast, and makes every fit reproducible from a fixed seed. The house import is import topica, no alias. The core needs only NumPy. More than a dozen models share one shape: model.fit(docs, ...), then topic_word (the φ matrix, topics × vocabulary), doc_topic (the θ matrix, documents × topics), top_words(n), and save / load. Diagnostics are model-agnostic: they take any fitted model's topic_word / doc_topic.

Because the count-based variational models (CTM, STM, DTM, SupervisedLDA) are deterministic to the bit and the Gibbs models are seed-reproducible, "run it again and see if the topics hold" is a real test here, not a hope. Use that.

How topica changes the standard advice

If you have internalized the usual computational-text-analysis guidance ("STM is R-only", "use BERTopic for the neural approach in Python", "covariates mean you have to leave Python"), update it. With topica:

• STM, CTM, SAGE, STS, DMR, and keyATM all run in Python, validated against their reference implementations. A covariate-aware topic model, including covariate-driven sentiment (STS, the sentiment-discourse extension of STM), no longer forces a switch to R.
• Classical and neural live side by side. BERTopic, Top2Vec, ETM, and FASTopic take embedding vectors you supply (no PyTorch in the wheel) and sit next to LDA and STM behind the same diagnostics. You can compare them on one corpus without leaving the session.
• Effect estimates carry honest uncertainty. estimate_effect and standard_errors give you method-of-composition and bootstrap intervals, and they refuse to fabricate intervals for models that have no posterior to compose. Trust the refusal.

The choice of model still follows the research question, not the convenience of the language.

The workflow

These phases mirror how a careful text-analysis paper is actually built. At each handoff the researcher makes a call you should not make for them. Stop, show what you have, and ask.

Phase 0: research question and method

Before any code, get the question into one of three shapes, because they need different tools:

• Descriptive / exploratory ("what themes are in this corpus?") → a topic model: LDA to start, STM if covariates matter, HDP if you genuinely do not want to fix K.
• Measurement ("how much does theme X vary by group/time?") → STM or DMR, with the grouping or time variable as a prevalence covariate, plus estimate_effect. If the question is about the tone of a theme rather than its prevalence (how positively or negatively a theme is discussed, and how that varies by covariate), STS adds a sentiment-discourse latent on top of STM.
• Confirmatory ("do documents express concept X?") → often not a topic model. A dictionary, KeyATM / SeededLDA (guided by seed words), or a classifier fits a known target better than unsupervised topics do.

Topic models are a poor fit for very short, formulaic, or highly technical text, and for questions that need crisp category boundaries. Say so when you see one. For short text (tweets, survey answers, headlines) reach for GSDMM or PT, not LDA.

Handoff. The question framing and the model choice are the researcher's. Lay out the options with their trade-offs; let them choose.

Phase 1: build a defensible corpus

The corpus defines the scope of every claim that follows, so preprocessing is a substantive decision, not a chore. Use topica's preprocessing tools and write down every choice (stopwords, frequency thresholds, phrases), because the methods section has to report them.

import topica

corpus = topica.Corpus.from_documents(docs)   # docs: list of token lists
# or build from raw strings with tokenize(), learn_phrases()/apply_phrases()

Defaults worth stating explicitly to the researcher: lowercase, drop stopwords, drop terms in fewer than ~5-10 documents and terms in a very large share of documents. Prefer lemmatization to stemming (stemming hurts interpretability). Start minimal and add preprocessing only when topics show artifacts; do not pile on cleaning preemptively. Inspect the corpus (document count, length distribution, vocabulary size) and report it before modeling.

Handoff. Stopword lists and frequency cutoffs change what topics can exist. Surface them; do not bury them in a default.

Phase 2: choose and justify K

This is where agents most often overstep. K is a research decision about granularity, not a hyperparameter to maximize. K = 10 gives broad themes, K = 50 gives fine distinctions, and several values of K are usually defensible for the same corpus.

Do not pick the K that maximizes coherence. A model with fewer topics will often score higher on coherence while collapsing distinctions the researcher cares about. Use the diagnostics as evidence, not as an optimizer:

rows = topica.search_k(docs, [10, 15, 20, 25, 30], iters=1000)
# coherence, exclusivity, and held-out perplexity per K

The honest procedure: start from a theoretically plausible K, fit a small range around it, and for each K look at coherence and exclusivity and whether every topic can be labeled. Count the junk topics. Then let the researcher choose, and report sensitivity to that choice. topica.viz.search_k(rows) and quality_frontier make the trade-off legible.

Handoff. Present the curves and the labeled topics at two or three values of K. The researcher picks K; you report why.

Phase 3: fit

Always pass a seed. Always report it. For STM, covariates enter as a design matrix (build it with one_hot, and stm.spline / stm.interaction for non-linear and interaction terms), not a formula string:

X, names = topica.one_hot(party)
model = topica.STM(num_topics=20, seed=42)
model.fit(docs, prevalence=X, prevalence_names=names)   # content=... for SAGE

A plain LDA fit is topica.LDA(num_topics=20, seed=42).fit(docs, iters=1000). Check that the fit converged (the EM models expose a bound / converged flag; the Gibbs models expose log-likelihood history). A model that did not converge is not a result. Read topics off top_words, label_topics (prob / FREX / lift / score), and find_thoughts (the highest-θ documents for a topic) together: top words alone underdetermine what a topic is.

Phase 4: validate (not optional)

Algorithmic output is not ground truth. Before any topic becomes a finding:

• Stability. Refit under different seeds and check the topics persist: bootstrap_stability. topica's determinism makes this a clean test.
• Consensus across runs. select_model fits several seeds and keeps the best by a quality score; ensemble goes further and combines independent runs into a consensus set of topics more reliable than any single fit. Reach for these when a topic has to be stable to carry a claim.
• Coherence and exclusivity. coherence (u_mass, c_v, c_uci, c_npmi), exclusivity, topic_diversity.
• Human validation. word_intrusion and document_intrusion build the intrusion tests that show a topic is coherent to a human, not just to the metric. Offer to generate them; the researcher (or their coders) runs them.
• Robustness. Different K, different preprocessing, a subset by time or source. Compare to an alternative model if the claim is strong.

A one-call summary is available:

topica.diagnostics(model, texts)   # coherence, exclusivity, diversity table

Handoff. Whether a topic is "real enough" to interpret is a judgment. Give the diagnostics; let the researcher draw the line, and report where they drew it.

Phase 5: measure effects with honest uncertainty

If the question is about variation (over time, across groups), this is the results figure. Use the method of composition, which propagates topic-estimation uncertainty into the effect, and report intervals:

from topica import stm
draws   = stm.posterior_theta_samples(model, nsims=50, seed=0)
effects = stm.estimate_effect(draws, X, feature_names=names, cluster=source_id)
# or, model-agnostic with the uncertainty kind made explicit:
se = topica.standard_errors(model, corpus, of="effect", method="composition",
                            X=X, feature_names=names)

topica.viz.effect_plot(model, corpus, X=...) draws the per-topic forest plot and, importantly, refuses to draw confidence bands for models that have no posterior (cluster models like BERTopic), drawing point estimates and saying so instead. When you see that refusal, do not paper over it with a bootstrap unless the researcher asks; the absence of a band is information.

Phase 6: report

Topica produces publication-ready tables and figures (topic_table, summary, the topica.viz panels and dashboard). The methods section must state: model, K and the rationale, preprocessing, covariates, software version, seed, and the validation done. The results section gives labeled topics with top words, prevalence, covariate effects with intervals, and representative documents.

The single most important reporting discipline is language. Topics are statistical patterns of word co-occurrence. They are not necessarily coherent concepts, and they are not what a document is "about." Write:

• "Document d has high probability on Topic 3," not "Document d is about Topic 3."
• "Words associated with Topic 3 suggest ...," not "The model discovered that ..."
• "One interpretation of this pattern is ...," not a claim that the topic is a fact.

Findings apply to the analyzed corpus, not to "language" or "discourse" in general.

What the agent owns vs. what the researcher owns

The agent / topica owns	The researcher owns
Running models, picking sensible defaults	The research question
Computing coherence, exclusivity, stability	What counts as good enough
Surfacing the K trade-off curves	The choice of K
Listing top words, FREX, example documents	What each topic means (the labels)
Proposing covariate specifications	Which covariates belong in the model
Reporting effect sizes with honest intervals	Whether a result matters substantively
Refusing to fabricate uncertainty	Theoretical interpretation and the argument

When you find yourself about to make a call from the right column, stop and hand it back. The failure mode to avoid is an agent that runs the whole pipeline, picks K off a metric, auto-labels the topics, and presents a finished result that looks authoritative and is theoretically ungrounded. A topica session done well leaves the researcher having made every decision that a reviewer will question, with the diagnostics to defend each one.

Quick reference

• Build: Corpus.from_documents, tokenize, learn_phrases / apply_phrases
• Models: the names below are illustrative, not the full roster — topica ships ~30 models and the list grows, so do not treat this as complete. The canonical, always-current list is the generated roster in the docs (https://nealcaren.github.io/topica/guides/models/, from docs/guides/models.md) and the README table; consult it rather than relying on any hardcoded list here. Common starting points: LDA, STM, CTM, STS (sentiment), DMR, HDP, KeyATM, SeededLDA, BERTopic, GSDMM (short text)
• Read topics: top_words, label_topics, frex, relevance, find_thoughts, topic_table, summary
• Choose K: search_k, quality_frontier, topica.viz.search_k
• Validate: coherence, exclusivity, topic_diversity, bootstrap_stability, word_intrusion, document_intrusion, diagnostics
• Reliability across runs: select_model, ensemble
• Effects: estimate_effect, standard_errors, posterior_theta_samples, topica.viz.effect_plot
• Compare corpora: fighting_words
• Report: topica.viz.dashboard, summary, topic_table

Everything is documented at https://nealcaren.github.io/topica/. When in doubt about a signature, read the docs or the type stub (python/topica/_topica.pyi); do not guess.