Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42100650›Full record

ArticleStatistics and computing2026

Non-negative matrix factorization algorithms generally improve topic model fits.

Peter Carbonetto, Abhishek Sarkar, Zihao Wang, Matthew Stephens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics and computing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. SEEK-VEC: Robust Latent Structure Discovery via Ensemble Topic Modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Covariate-moderated Empirical Bayes Matrix Factorization.Advances in neural information processing systems · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Peter CarbonettoDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA.
Abhishek SarkarDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA.
Zihao WangDepartment of Statistics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA.
Matthew StephensDepartment of Human Genetics, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL USA.

Funding

Genome analysis: statistical methods and applicationsR01HG002585 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MATTHEW STEPHENS · 2002 to 2026
$8.4M
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG002585
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an effort to develop topic modeling methods that can be quickly applied to large data sets, we revisit the problem of maximum-likelihood estimation in topic models. It is known, at least informally, that maximum-likelihood estimation in topic models is closely related to non-negative matrix factorization (NMF). Yet, to our knowledge, this relationship has not been exploited previously to fit topic models. We show that recent advances in NMF optimization methods can be leveraged to fit topic models very efficiently, often resulting in much better fits and in less time than existing algorithms for topic models. We also formally make the connection between the NMF optimization problem and maximum-likelihood estimation for the topic model, and using this result we show that the expectation maximization (EM) algorithm for the topic model is essentially the same as the classic multiplicative updates for NMF. Our methods are implemented in the R package "fastTopics".

Indexed as

Expectation maximizationMaximum-likelihood estimationNonconvex optimizationNon-negative matrix factorizationTopic models

Identifiers

PMID42100650
PMCPMC13144203

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.