Recent table representation learning and data discovery methods tackle table union search (TUS) within data lakes, which involves identifying tables that can be unioned with a given query table to enrich its content. These methods are commonly evaluated using benchmarks that aim to assess semantic understanding in real-world TUS tasks. However, our analysis of prominent TUS benchmarks reveals several limitations that allow simple baselines to perform surprisingly well, often outperforming more sophisticated approaches. This suggests that current benchmark scores are heavily influenced by dataset-specific characteristics and fail to effectively isolate the gains from semantic understanding. To address this, we propose essential criteria for future benchmarks to enable a more realistic and reliable evaluation of progress in semantic table union search.

Recent table representation learning and data discovery methods tackle table union search (TUS) within data lakes, which involves identifying tables that can be unioned with a given query table to enrich its content. These methods are commonly evaluated using benchmarks that aim to assess semantic understanding in real-world TUS tasks. However, our analysis of prominent TUS benchmarks reveals several limitations that allow simple baselines to perform surprisingly well, often outperforming more sophisticated approaches. This suggests that current benchmark scores are heavily influenced by dataset-specific characteristics and fail to effectively isolate the gains from semantic understanding. To address this, we propose essential criteria for future benchmarks to enable a more realistic and reliable evaluation of progress in semantic table union search.

This article proposes a new family of LLM-based topic coherence metrics called Contextualized Topic Coherence (CTC) and inspired by standard human topic evaluation methods. CTC metrics simulate human-centered coherence evaluation while maintaining the efficiency of other automated methods. We compare the performance of our CTC metrics and five other baseline metrics on seven topic models and show that CTC metrics better reflect human judgment, particularly for topics extracted from short text collections by avoiding highly scored topics that are meaningless to humans.