legal document analysts

Abstract: Large language model agents are increasingly deployed as multi-agent systems rather than as a standalone model operating within a single context. Recent agent harnesses allow the model to instantiate worker agents and to author the executable workflow that coordinates them, shifting the design of system structure from developers to the model at run time. The quality of this organization therefore constitutes a distinct capability, yet existing benchmarks either measure end-to-end task completion or evaluate coordination under structures specified in advance. We formalize this capability as workflow orchestration and introduce WorkflowArena, a benchmark of 145 long-horizon tasks spanning 8 professional domains, from software engineering and formal mathematics to legal analysis and 3D production. Each task specifies an initial workspace and an integrated deliverable composed of interdependent components, which is assessed by a hidden verifier. Agents determine autonomously whether and how to delegate, and all delegation is recorded, enabling joint evaluation of deliverable quality and the organization of the underlying work. Experiments with nine models show that no single configuration performs best across all domains and that systems exhibit distinct delegation strategies: at high effort, Claude models in Claude Code invoke workflows less frequently but with larger worker groups, whereas GPT models in Codex delegate more frequently in smaller units. When the executing model is held fixed on a challenging subset of tasks, workflows authored by Claude Opus 5.5 substantially improve weaker executors, indicating that workflow organization is itself a measurable determinant of task performance.

Abstract: Visual citations show where an answer is supported, but not how the cited content contributes to it. In scientific document question answering, a model may read a value directly, compress several observations, or combine evidence to infer a conclusion. We study typed visual provenance, where a system generates an answer together with source regions and explicit support relations. We introduce ReViE, a dataset of 3,941 questions over complete scientific documents, with page, section, and region annotations labeled as Quotation, Compression, or Inference. We further propose VisProve, which augments joint answer and provenance generation with differentiable Spatial Evidence Reading and Evidence-Answer Relation Feedback. VisProve conditions next-token prediction on localized visual evidence and its estimated support relation through a gated norm-bounded residual. On the document-disjoint ReViE test set, VisProve improves Typed-F1 from 3.52 to 5.48 and Section-F1 from 45.99 to 53.24 over joint supervised fine-tuning with the same backbone, while Page-F1 changes only marginally. These results suggest that coupling visual grounding with support relation modeling mainly improves fine-grained provenance, while the low absolute Typed-F1 reveals a substantial gap between answer generation and precise visual evidence attribution.

Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can surface passages that support a claim, contradict it, or fail to address it, yet existing calibrated grounding methods are typically one-sided and model only supporting evidence. We introduce Conformal Evidence Sets (CES), a two-sided framework that returns separate support and refutation sets with finite-sample inclusion coverage of at least $1-α$ on each side under exchangeability; a Bonferroni union yields joint coverage of at least $1-2α$. On labeled candidate pools from the contrastive VitaminC benchmark, CES closely tracks nominal coverage across $α\!\in\!\{0.05,0.10,0.15,0.20,0.30\}$, with maximum deviations of $3.0$ percentage points for support and $5.4$ for refutation, and reaches essentially the same empirical coverage--size frontier as a test-tuned fixed-threshold heuristic without any test exposure. Stress tests mark the boundary of that guarantee: under FEVER distribution shift both sides under-cover, by up to $12.7$ percentage points, and support-side group-stratified recalibration substantially reduces the support gap. Scorer swaps, hard-negative retrieval, cross-dataset transfer, and a live end-to-end pilot expose a clear separation: when exchangeability holds and relevant evidence is retrieved, evidence inclusion remains calibrated even with an imperfect scorer, whereas the support/refute verdict tracks scorer quality directly. Calibrated evidence coverage and reliable verdicts are therefore distinct properties and should be reported separately.

Abstract: Mathematical understanding depends on the route from hypotheses to conclusion: how the parts of a proof function and which dependencies carry the argument forward. This structure can persist when wording or notation changes, while a small alteration to a hypothesis or inference can produce a different argument beneath similar prose. Formal verification can establish that a rewrite proves the same theorem, but not whether it follows the same mathematical route. Comparing informal proofs, especially those produced or revised by generative models, therefore requires reconstructing which claims, dependencies, and reasoning steps are preserved, reorganized, or replaced. We present ProofDiff, a system for comparing informal mathematical documents. It is designed to support human review, not to certify mathematical correctness. Given two documents, ProofDiff independently constructs a source-grounded argument map for each and proposes correspondences between the resulting maps. Each map captures the document's claims and reasoning steps and records the typed relations that connect them. An integrated human-review layer allows reviewers to revise the maps and correspondences while preserving an auditable history. Comparing the two argument maps provides a basis for inspecting whether the documents follow the same mathematical route and where their claims or dependencies differ. We demonstrate ProofDiff on four illustrative pairs of AI-generated proofs, ranging from a detailed proof and its concise revision to proofs using different mathematical strategies.

Abstract: Deep research agents answer complex questions through repeated search. They rely on a harness that runs their tool calls and returns evidence to their context. This creates a trade-off: Search works best over long passages, which give enough context for reliable semantic matching. But the returned evidence should be short, because every observation stays in the agent's context for the rest of the trajectory. We introduce CORE, a training-free harness that combines coarse-to-fine search with context management. CORE retrieves passages with a dense retriever. It then reuses the token-level similarities from a late-interaction reranker to return only the most relevant snippet from each passage. Context management lets the agent expand the context around sources it has already retrieved and suppresses repeated snippets. In controlled closed-search comparisons with the Tongyi DeepResearch and OpenResearcher harnesses, CORE achieves state-of-the-art answer accuracy and evidence recall across three agent models and three benchmarks (BrowseComp-Plus, BrowseComp-Wikipedia and BrowseComp-Plus-CM), on corpora containing up to 553M documents.

Abstract: Despite advances in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), suppressing hallucinations during complex reasoning remains a persistent challenge. We identify that existing RAG pipelines suffer from a textual bottleneck: by passing only raw text to the generator, they discard discriminative signals of the retriever. Furthermore, recent attempts to unify retrieval and generation within a single LLM induce severe objective conflict and exacerbate the rank collapse of decoder-only architectures, degrading performance on both tasks. To address these limitations, we introduce ShiftRAG, a decoupled RAG framework that employs a single LLM backbone but isolates discriminative retrieval learning from autoregressive generation. To bridge these decoupled modes, we project retrieval alignments into continuous soft tokens, establishing a high-bandwidth interface that infuses the generator with retrieval-side signals. Concurrently, our soft orthogonality objective mitigates rank collapse, while layer-wise relevance dynamics preserve the fine-grained latent space required for highly discriminative evidence separation. Extensive evaluations demonstrate that ShiftRAG significantly improves retrieval and question answering performance over state-of-the-art baselines. ShiftRAG preserves foundational capabilities of the backbone while maintaining a favorable efficiency-performance trade-off on general text encoding and generative tasks.

Abstract: Clinical natural language processing includes diverse tasks such as information extraction, classification, and question answering. Developing one model for all tasks could simplify deployment and improve knowledge transfer. We evaluated whether small recurrent-depth language models can meet this need through joint fine-tuning and compared their performance with standard transformers. We fine-tuned Ouro1.4B-Thinking, Ouro-2.6B-Thinking, HRM-Text-1B, Qwen3-1.7B, and Qwen3-8B on 9 datasets covering information extraction, classification, inference, and question answering, and evaluated them on four additional datasets excluded from training. Across these 13 datasets, Ouro-1.4B-Thinking achieved higher performances than Qwen3-1.7B on 11 datasets; Ouro-2.6BThinking was competitive with Qwen3-8B on most tasks. Ouro models showed the largest gains on inference and question answering, whereas HRM-Text-1B showed mixed results. These findings support further study of recurrent-depth models for clinical tasks through controlled experiments to isolate architectural effects and investigate how recurrent computation influences reasoning, knowledge acquisition, and generalization.

Abstract: Retrieving information from visually rich documents requires matching queries against pages that contain complex evidence in tables, figures, and layout-dependent structures. Current vision-language retrievers address this but incur query-time costs that grow with corpus size and are impractical to scale. We propose SCOUT, a cascaded two-track retrieval framework that separates retrieval performance from exhaustive search. The visual track first uses a lightweight parent retriever to filter the corpus to a compact candidate pool, then applies a stronger multi-vector reranker only to those candidates. In parallel, a semantic track retrieves over hierarchical page and document summaries generated offline to provide a signal complementary to visual matching. The outputs are fused through cross-modal query refinement, which uses semantic scores to adjust the visual query representation before final ranking. We evaluate SCOUT on 4 major benchmarks against 6 baselines and observe a significant query-time latency improvement up to 80.7x (28.8x on average) relative to the best baseline, while exceeding state-of-the-art retrieval performance by up to 7.8% NDCG across all benchmarks.

Abstract: Data augmentation (DA) plays a vital role in improving model performance in low-resource or limited-supervision scenarios within Natural Language Processing (NLP). Existing DA methods, such as synonym replacement and back-translation, have demonstrated effectiveness on the word or sentence level; however, they frequently neglect discourse-level coherence and logical flow, which are essential for complex tasks dependent on inter-sentential relationships. In this paper, we propose a structure-preserving document-level data augmentation framework based on large language models (LLMs) and document-level discourse structure parsing. Our approach identifies rhetorical relations between sentence pairs and extracts key phrases, which are then replaced with semantically coherent but topically shifted content while preserving the original discourse structure. Experimental results on text summarization and question answering show that the proposed augmented data provides complementary supervision and improves combined-data training across the evaluated tasks. Comparisons with a standard RST parser and controlled ablations further support the proposed discourse representation.

Abstract: Corpus-level long-context reasoning requires agents to acquire and integrate evidence across document collections that exceed their context windows. Existing agent harnesses enable incremental access to these corpora, but acquired evidence and evolving conclusions often remain entangled in a growing interaction history. This implicit state management can lead to two coupled failure modes: unbounded exploration, where retrieval expands the interaction history without resolving decision-relevant information gaps, and evidence-state drift, where previously acquired evidence or subsequent corrections fail to inform the current conclusion. We present LongHarness, a model-agnostic harness that makes the interaction between acquired evidence and evolving conclusions explicit. Its core mechanism, Evidence-Conclusion Coevolution, uses unresolved conclusions to guide exploration toward missing information, while newly acquired evidence strengthens or revises the conclusions that directed the search. LongHarness couples this process with Evidence Lifecycle Management, which keeps accumulated evidence current and traceable throughout the interaction. Together, these mechanisms focus retrieval on remaining information needs and keep conclusions aligned with current evidence. We evaluate LongHarness on OfficeQA Pro V1 and V2, AA-LCR, and LongBench v2 using GLM-5.3-Flash and Qwen3.8-Flash. Compared with direct reasoning using the same backbone, LongHarness improves GLM-5.3-Flash exact match on OfficeQA Pro from 15.8% to 60.2% on V1 and from 4.4% to 61.1% on V2. Against state-of-the-art agent harnesses, it surpasses Claude Code by 12.0 percentage points on V1 and Codex by 18.9 points on V2. With Qwen3.8-Flash, LongHarness reaches 61.7% on V1, outperforming Claude Code by 8.3 points and Codex by 12.0 points.

Abstract: When documents supporting an agent's derived facts are revoked or replaced, should it repair memory or re-read current evidence? We introduce an evidence-revision evaluation on medication- and problem-list tasks from public ICU records. Under revocation, replacement and control events, we compare full and source-filtered re-reading with caching, rebuilding and graph-local repair across two 7B models. Memory is supplied in full without retrieval, and costs include ingest, revision and every use. On short records, local repair uses 5-10$\times$ fewer revision tokens than rebuilding, yet every memory pipeline costs at least twice full re-reading in held-out conditions. In a small pre-specified development sweep, adding task-ineligible documents extended records to about 10,000 tokens; at that length, memory's mean cumulative cost fell below full re-reading's after 2-14 uses, partly through truncated extraction, while source-filtered re-reading remained cheapest. In the replacement study, none of the four primary confirmatory tests reached statistical significance. These results show why the cost of agent memory after evidence revision must be assessed against source-filtered re-reading over the full pipeline.

Abstract: Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems for multi-hop Question Answering (QA) must balance retrieval quality with computational cost. This cost is incurred during indexing time, through the use of expensive Knowledge Graphs (KGs) or Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate summaries, or during querying, through iterative LLM-driven retrieval. To reduce it while maintaining retrieval quality, we present MatRAG, a hierarchical framework that combines RAG systems with Matryoshka Representation Learning (MRL). MatRAG addresses both kinds of cost by aligning the semantic hierarchy of a clustering structure with the nested structure of MRL. Specifically, it organizes the corpus of documents into a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) of clusters with progressively coarser granularity. Each level is indexed by a lower Matryoshka dimension. MatRAG pairs an iterative, top-down traversal of the DAG with an entity-driven mechanism that controls the hop budget and re-ranks candidates. We evaluated MatRAG on three standard multi-hop QA benchmarks against seven representative baselines. MatRAG outperforms its strongest competitors in terms of retrieval quality; furthermore, it reduces indexing costs by avoiding KG construction and LLM-based summarization, and lowers query-time costs through dimension-aware similarity.

Abstract: Deep Research agents synthesize evidence into cited reports, yet a well-cited report can still reach a misleading conclusion. Citation correctness checks whether cited sources support individual claims. It does not show whether adaptive search exposed a representative view of all documents made available for evaluation, which we call the candidate pool. Early findings redirect later queries, document choices, and stopping, so the documents an agent reads form a selective sample. Existing evaluations rarely account for this selection. We formulate the problem as adaptive evidence sampling and introduce Causal Evidence Selection Correction (CESS). CESS predicts each candidate document's evidence direction and corrects the candidate-pool average using the logged probabilities of selecting each document and reaching each search round. Shrinkage stabilizes short searches, while intervals replace point estimates when some documents cannot be sampled. We also prove that estimating the average evidence direction of a common pool differs from measuring how a change in search policy alters the evidence read. The latter requires intervention. On questions from the MS2 systematic-review benchmark, CESS reduces mean absolute error against the candidate-pool average by $9.2\%$ and reduces the estimate's change under opposing document rankings by $39.4\%$ relative to averaging the evidence scores of documents read. Across trajectories from a public Open Deep Research agent, the corresponding reductions reach $60.1\%$ and $87.2\%$. A further 4,800 trajectories under paired interventions confirm that correcting a pool estimate and measuring a policy effect are different tasks. CESS therefore audits whether the evidence direction underlying a report reflects the documents available for evaluation, while a separate intervention analysis measures the effect of search decisions.

Abstract: Understanding multi-perspective alternative narratives requires identifying how their information agrees, conflicts, or differs across sources. Existing work on cross-text relations largely focuses on categorizing relations between predefined text pairs, such as entailment or contradiction, rather than directly extracting such information from full narratives. To address this gap, we introduce Overlap-Unique-Conflict (OUC) extraction, a cross-narrative task that extracts all overlapping, conflicting, and unique clauses from two narratives. To support this study, we construct a benchmark of approximately 22K narrative pairs and 140K OUC instances spanning factual, argumentative, and political discourse. Evaluating 14 open-source LLMs (0.6B-35B), we find that unique information is far easier to extract than overlap and conflict: the strongest model, Gemma-4-31B, reaches only 61.13% F1-score on overlap and 48.58% on conflict, against more than 75% on unique. Further diagnostic analysis reveals that this difficulty does not stem from relation recognition alone, but rather from a failure to pair and extract the corresponding clauses from full narratives, especially in smaller models. Nevertheless, learning these extractions with task-specific supervision narrows the gap considerably: a fine-tuned Qwen-3-8B gains 15-28% absolute over its baseline and surpasses models roughly four times its size (e.g., Qwen-3.6-35B) on several tasks. Even so, overlap and conflict remain well below satisfactory, leaving cross-narrative clause extraction an open challenge.

Abstract: Judicial reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs) to analyze. This paper contributes a sentence-level benchmark for evaluating the ability of LLMs to classify interpretive canons as articulated by Larenz in the tradition of Savigny. Our contributions are threefold. First, we operationalize this conception of interpretation as classification criteria. Second, we provide a dataset of decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court annotated at the sentence level. Third, we report baseline evaluations of four LLMs from three model families under expert hand-written prompts, compared against prompts optimized with Genetic-Pareto (GEPA). Mean F1 over the seven binary subtasks clusters between 70.4 and 79.2 across models, with grammatical interpretation usually the easiest canon to identify and systematic interpretation usually the hardest; under the tested configuration, GEPA-optimized prompts do not systematically outperform the hand-written ones, suggesting that the expert prompts provide a meaningful baseline.

Abstract: Despite the success of neural models in natural language processing, their black-box nature limits interpretability and conceals the linguistic phenomena underlying their predictions. We present SLITE, an explainable hybrid model for Recognizing Textual Entailment that integrates two complementary layers of semantic analysis: a structural-relational layer, based on semantic compatibility and incompatibility between compositional entities, and a distributional-informational layer, based on structured patterns of information change between embedding-based representations of the premise and the hypothesis. We propose 17 features that combine entity-level semantic relations, polarity-sensitive lexical matching, and alignment measures over semantic sub-representations of the similarity matrix, including measures based on entropy and transfer entropy. A logistic regression trained on these features achieves an accuracy of 83% on three-class SICK and 96% on SICK-CE, outperforming IsoLex by 4 percentage points and falling within 2 percentage points of RoBERTa with a fraction of its computational complexity. Ablation studies and SHAP analysis confirm that structural-relational features are the primary drivers of classification, while distributional-informational features provide essential complementary contributions, particularly for detecting neutrality and contradiction. Our results demonstrate that further exploration of hybrid approaches is a viable and scientifically productive alternative to massive neural architectures, and we hope they will strengthen the dialogue between linguistic theory and computational modeling of inference

Abstract: How should natural language processing models be selected and adapted for global health literature in environments where annotated data and computational resources are limited? This thesis investigates these challenges through experiments on semantic tag discovery, named entity recognition (NER), and multi-label topic classification. First, skip-gram word2vec models trained on progressively larger specialized corpora are compared with BioWordVec to assess how corpus size and domain context influence tag discovery. Vocabulary coverage and qualitative evaluation indicate that broader coverage does not necessarily yield more useful domain-specific associations. The analysis then turns to entity extraction, comparing convolutional spaCy models with a RoBERTa-based transformer on 1,000 annotated sentences. Under a lenient scoring protocol, the transformer achieves 0.80 micro-F1 versus 0.65-0.69 for convolutional models, but takes 82 seconds rather than 5-6 seconds. This trade-off motivates fine-tuning convolutional models and integrating a disease recognizer that achieves 81.33% test F1 on the NCBI Disease Corpus. Combined with PDF preprocessing, entity filtering, and MeSH enrichment, the resulting pipeline supports document-level indexing. To complement entity extraction with thematic annotation, MiniLM-based few-shot classification is compared with BART-MNLI zero-shot inference across 50 topics and 1,000 handcrafted test sentences. BART-MNLI achieves 95.2% single-label accuracy versus 59%; reported multi-label accuracies are 88% and 32% under partly manual assessment. However, its higher inference cost limits practical integration. The results show where domain specialization and lightweight adaptation offer practical value, and where transformer accuracy justifies higher inference costs, providing an empirical basis for building knowledge systems under resource constraints.

Abstract: Prior case retrieval (PCR) aims to identify precedent cases relevant to a given query case. Existing PCR benchmarks and methods predominantly operate at the document level, treating entire judgments as the unit of relevance. This formulation is suboptimal for legal practitioners, as judgments address multiple legal issues and only a small subset of paragraphs is relevant to a particular query. Addressing this gap, we introduce UK-PRBench, a benchmark for paragraph-level precedent retrieval in UK case law, constructed from judgments obtained from the UK National Archives and covering a broad range of UK courts and tribunals. Furthermore, we evaluate state-of-the-art retrieval models and establish baseline results. Our experiments show that paragraph-level precedent retrieval remains challenging for current retrieval approaches, highlighting substantial room for improvement. UK-PRBench provides a standardised benchmark for evaluating fine-grained precedent retrieval and advancing retrieval systems for the UK legal domain.

Abstract: Scientific agents support a range of literature-based research tasks, such as retrieval, question answering, evidence-grounded generation, and claim assessment. Most existing systems, however, are organized around individual tasks: the same papers are repeatedly retrieved, segmented, and interpreted, and the understanding built in one task is difficult to reuse in the next. We present ScholarStack, a layered research asset framework that compiles a paper collection into reusable, versioned, and provenance-preserving assets at three complementary levels: source-grounded paper-level statements, domain-level organization, and evidence-grounded cross-paper syntheses. A common access interface returns task-specific views at the evidence granularity each task requires, preserving study conditions, source traceability, and verification status. We instantiate the framework on four task families spanning ten task settings, comparing agents that use the compiled assets with task-specific baselines under matched base models. Quality gains concentrate on tasks that require cross-paper evidence, such as multi-paper question answering and literature review generation, and query-time token cost falls on every task where it is measured, with assets compiled once and reused across tasks. These results suggest that layered research assets can serve as shared infrastructure for scientific agents, shifting literature-based assistance from isolated document processing toward cumulative, evidence-grounded workflows.

Abstract: As Large Language Model (LLM) APIs become increasingly integrated into privacy-sensitive workflows, ensuring inference-time privacy without compromising task utility remains a major challenge. Existing approaches preserve most of the original semantic content to maintain downstream performance, but this also leaves exploitable cues for reconstructing the original text. This work investigates semantic decoupling, which replaces original semantics with alternative content while preserving the structure needed for LLM reasoning. Based on this idea, we propose CROSS-MAP, a bidirectional framework that maps private inputs into a different semantic domain before inference and recovers the corresponding outputs afterward. Local models are trained with multi-objective optimization to maximize semantic divergence in the mapping stage while minimizing semantic inconsistency in the recovery stage. Experiments show that CROSS-MAP reduces reconstruction success across multiple attack settings while outperforming existing baselines in utility.

Abstract: We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper $F_1$, 0.441 evidence $F_1$ and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Abstract: Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.

Abstract: Topic modeling is widely used in computational social sciences to identify latent themes in large text corpora. Traditional approaches rely on Bag-of-Words representations and generative models such as LDA, while recent methods like BERTopic operate on dense document embeddings. This paper introduces the Structural Contextual Probabilistic Topic Model (SCPTM), an architecture that incorporates syntactic dependency relations into topic inference. SCPTM represents a corpus as a heterogeneous graph of documents and words connected by lexical and syntactic edges, processed through a Graph Attention Network within a Variational Autoencoder to produce probabilistic, mixed-membership topic distributions. We evaluate seven topic modeling techniques (including four SCPTM ablations) across four corpora differing in register and discourse structure. Our framework combines coherence (C_V, C_NPMI), topic diversity, clustering-label alignment (NMI), and phrase-level diagnostics (complementarity and valence gap). Results show that SCPTM's neural architecture yields substantial gains in document-topic alignment over generative baselines, but these gains are attributable to the variational encoder rather than to syntax. Syntax contributes to topic diversity, where graph-augmented variants outperform the no-graph baseline across all corpora, and to descriptor quality: dependency paths capture predicate-argument structures and stance in deliberative registers, while proving redundant in technical and institutional corpora. The valence gap is positive across all variants, but driven primarily by phrase grouping rather than syntactic filtering. We conclude that syntactic encoding matters conditionally: it benefits action-oriented, argumentative texts, but introduces noise in informational or administrative registers.