Text clustering is a fundamental task in natural language processing, yet traditional clustering algorithms with pre-trained embeddings often struggle in domain-specific contexts without costly fine-tuning. Large language models (LLMs) provide strong contextual reasoning, yet prior work mainly uses them as auxiliary modules to refine embeddings or adjust cluster boundaries. We propose ClusterFusion, a hybrid framework that instead treats the LLM as the clustering core, guided by lightweight embedding methods. The framework proceeds in three stages: embedding-guided subset partition, LLM-driven topic summarization, and LLM-based topic assignment. This design enables direct incorporation of domain knowledge and user preferences, fully leveraging the contextual adaptability of LLMs. Experiments on three public benchmarks and two new domain-specific datasets demonstrate that ClusterFusion not only achieves state-of-the-art performance on standard tasks but also delivers substantial gains in specialized domains. To support future work, we release our newly constructed dataset and results on all benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the ClusterFusion framework
Method
Bank77
CLINC
Tweet
Acc
NMI
Acc
NMI
Acc
NMI
KMeans
65.2 ± 0.0
83.3 ± 0.0
80.9 ± 0.0
92.5 ± 0.0
59.1 ± 0.0
80.6 ± 0.0
Agglomerative
64.0 ± 0.0
81.7 ± 0.0
77.7 ± 0.0
91.5 ± 0.0
57.5 ± 0.0
80.6 ± 0.0
DSE (w/ KMeans)
49.2 ± 0.0
71.0 ± 0.0
62.1 ± 0.0
85.5 ± 0.0
50.8 ± 0.0
78.4 ± 0.0
PCKMeans
59.6 ± 0.0
79.8 ± 0.0
74.5 ± 0.0
90.4 ± 0.0
63.8 ± 0.0
86.7 ± 0.0
LLM Correction
64.8
80.6
75.7
91.1
67.3
87.5
Table 1: Clustering performance on three public benchmarks. All LLM-based methods use GPT-4o, except LLMEdgeRefine (GPT-3.5, as we were unable to reproduce the original implementation). Unsorted randomizes input order; Cosine order sorts by cosine similarity (preferred over Euclidean in most cases). Oracle order sorts by ground-truth topics to test the upper bound; Assignment only provides ground-truth topics directly, isolating the assignment stage.
Method
OpenAI Codex
Adobe Lightroom
Acc
NMI
Acc
NMI
KMeans
41.7 ± 0.0
55.5 ± 0.0
30.7 ± 0.0
18.8 ± 0.0
Agglomerative Clust.
44.5 ± 0.0
56.1 ± 0.0
16.3 ± 0.0
18.5 ± 0.0
Keyphrase Clust. (w/ KMeans)
40.3 ± 2.5
52.7 ± 1.4
71.5 ± 0.3
46.8 ± 0.6
Keyphrase Clust. (w/ Agglom.)
35.8 ± 1.8
48.9 ± 2.0
71.3 ± 0.4
46.0 ± 0.6
ClusterFusion (Unsorted)
61.8 ± 2.9
70.5 ± 0.9
81.9 ± 2.3
56.7 ± 5.2
Table 2: Clustering performance on two domain-specific datasets. All LLM based methods use GPT-4o.
Method
Interpretation Accuracy
KMeans
0.28 ± 0.01
Agglomerative
0.27 ± 0.00
Keyphrase (w/ KMeans)
0.29 ± 0.02
Keyphrase (w/ Agglom.)
0.28 ± 0.02
ClusterFusion (Unsorted)
0.49 ± 0.02
ClusterFusion (KMeans order)
0.51 ± 0.06
Table 3: Interpretation accuracy on the OpenAI Codex dataset.
Method
Bank77
CLINC
Tweet
OpenAI Codex
Adobe Lightroom
Best baseline
67.3 ± 2.0
86.8
78.2
44.5 ± 0.0
71.5 ± 0.3
ClusterFusion (w/o extra domain prompting)
68.3 ± 2.9
87.1 ± 0.8
87.1 ± 8.6
53.8 ± 2.0
78.2 ± 2.1
ClusterFusion (w/ extra domain prompting)
–
87.3 ± 1.0
–
66.0 ± 4.6
83.5 ± 1.9
Table 4: Accuracy with and without extra domain prompting. Using only the minimal context available to baselines (w/o extra), ClusterFusion already achieves the best accuracy on all five datasets; extra domain prompting adds a further boost on the domain-specific corpora (Codex, Lightroom). “–”: no extra domain prompting was applied, as none was found to improve these general benchmarks.
Figure 2: Clustering performance under different ordering strategies across five datasets: (a) accuracy and (b) NMI.
Figure 3: Cost-accuracy comparison between ClusterFusion and Keyphrase. API price is based on OpenAI’s GPT-4o pricing (April 2025).
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
GPT-4o
GPT-5
Qwen3
Acc
NMI
Acc
NMI
Acc
NMI
Keyphrase Clust. (w/ KMeans)
40.3 ± 2.5
52.7 ± 1.4
40.9 ± 1.6
53.0 ± 2.3
31.2 ± 3.3
45.2 ± 1.3
Keyphrase Clust. (w/ Agglom.)
35.8 ± 1.8
48.9 ± 2.0
36.1 ± 2.2
49.3 ± 2.7
30.1 ± 1.5
40.2 ± 1.3
ClusterFusion (Unsorted)
61.8 ± 2.9
70.5 ± 0.9
64.9 ± 1.4
70.9 ± 1.3
51.6 ± 2.9
63.6 ± 1.4
ClusterFusion (KMeans order)
63.6 ± 5.0
71.5 ± 3.5
65.3 ± 6.9
75.4 ± 4.0
55.1 ± 1.4
65.3 ± 1.7
ClusterFusion (Cosine order)
66.0 ± 4.6
72.6 ± 1.8
69.0 ± 3.5
76.5 ± 1.4
56.0 ± 2.5
66.6 ± 1.7
Appendix
Table 5: Clustering performance on the Codex dataset across different LLM backbones.