Papers › Multiscale Analysis of Count Data through Topic Alignment

Multiscale Analysis of Count Data through Topic Alignment

12 Sep 2021arXiv:2109.05541links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Julia Fukuyama, Kris Sankaran, Laura Symul

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Topic modeling is a popular method used to describe biological count data. With topic models, the user must specify the number of topics K. Since there is no definitive way to choose K and since a true value might not exist, we develop techniques to study the relationships across models with different K. This can show how many topics are consistently present across different models, if a topic is only transiently present, or if a topic splits in two when K increases. This strategy gives more insight into the process generating the data than choosing a single value of K would. We design a visual representation of these cross-model relationships, which we call a topic alignment, and present three diagnostics based on it. We show the effectiveness of these tools for interpreting the topics on simulated and real data, and we release an accompanying R package, alto, available at https://lasy.github.io/alto.

PaperPDFCode

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

Code

krisrs1128/topic_align officialmentioned in papermentioned on GitHub report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections