Topic model evaluation, like evaluation of other unsupervised methods, can be contentious. However, the field has coalesced around automated estimates of topic coherence, which rely on the frequency of word co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Contemporary neural topic models surpass classical ones according to these metrics. At the same time, topic model evaluation suffers from a validation gap: automated coherence, developed for classical models, has not been validated using human experimentation for neural models. In addition, a meta-analysis of topic modeling literature reveals a substantial standardization gap in automated topic modeling benchmarks. To address the validation gap, we compare automated coherence with the two most widely accepted human judgment tasks: topic rating and word intrusion. To address the standardization gap, we systematically evaluate a dominant classical model and two state-of-the-art neural models on two commonly used datasets. Automated evaluations declare a winning model when corresponding human evaluations do not, calling into question the validity of fully automatic evaluations independent of human judgments.

Contemporary vision benchmarks predominantly consider tasks on which humans can achieve near-perfect performance. However, humans are frequently presented with visual data that they cannot classify with 100% certainty, and models trained on standard vision benchmarks achieve low performance when evaluated on this data. To address this issue, we introduce a procedure for creating datasets of ambiguous images and use it to produce SQUID-E ("Squidy"), a collection of noisy images extracted from videos. All images are annotated with ground truth values and a test set is annotated with human uncertainty judgments. We use this dataset to characterize human uncertainty in vision tasks and evaluate existing visual event classification models. Experimental results suggest that existing vision models are not sufficiently equipped to provide meaningful outputs for ambiguous images and that datasets of this nature can be used to assess and improve such models through model training and direct evaluation of model calibration. These findings motivate large-scale ambiguous dataset creation and further research focusing on noisy visual data.1

We introduce a novel framework for incorporating human expertise into algorithmic predictions. Our approach leverages human judgment to distinguish inputs which are, or look the same to predictive algorithms. We argue that this framing clarifies the problem of human-AI collaboration in prediction tasks, as experts often form judgments by drawing on information which is not encoded in an algorithm's training data. Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of side information, and further provides a simple but principled method for selectively incorporating human feedback into algorithmic predictions. We show that this method provably improves the performance of any feasible algorithmic predictor and precisely quantify this improvement. We find empirically that although algorithms often outperform their human counterparts, human judgment can improve algorithmic predictions on instances (which can be identified ex-ante). In an X-ray classification task, we find that this subset constitutes nearly 30% of the patient population. Our approach provides a natural way of uncovering this heterogeneity and thus enabling effective human-AI collaboration.

Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side

Building an open-domain conversational agent is a challenging problem.