We explore the effectiveness of an LLM-guided query refinement paradigm for extending the usability of embedding models to challenging zero-shot search and classification tasks. Our approach refines the embedding representation of a user query using feedback from a generative LLM on a small set of documents, enabling embeddings to adapt in real time to the target task. We conduct extensive experiments with state-of-the-art text embedding models across a diverse set of challenging search and classification benchmarks. Empirical results indicate that LLM-guided query refinement yields consistent gains across all models and datasets, with relative improvements of up to +25% in literature search, intent detection, key-point matching, and nuanced query-instruction following. The refined queries improve ranking quality and induce clearer binary separation across the corpus, enabling the embedding space to better reflect the nuanced, task-specific constraints of each ad-hoc user query. Importantly, this expands the range of practical settings in which embedding models can be effectively deployed, making them a compelling alternative when costly LLM pipelines are not viable at corpus-scale. We release our experimental code for reproducibility, at https://github.com/IBM/task-aware-embedding-refinement.
Should you replace your text-embedding pipeline with a large language model? We answer this with a controlled, cost-aware comparison of ten LLMs across six families and 26 embedding models (118M to 14B parameters) on 37 tasks spanning classification, semantic textual similarity (STS), clustering, pair classification, and retrieval. In aggregate the two paradigms are effectively tied: the best LLM (Gemini 3.1 Pro, 77.6) and the best embedding model (77.2) differ by 0.4 points. Their strengths differ by task: LLMs lead on reasoning-heavy retrieval, embedding models lead on classification, and the two match on clustering, STS, and pair classification. Reaching that parity is expensive. An LLM costs up to 1,431x more than an embedding model of comparable quality (USD 154 vs. USD 0.11 per benchmark pass), and the open LLMs tested process tokens 2.5 to 736x more slowly on the same GPU. Reasoning tokens account for 28 to 81% of LLM inference cost; lower reasoning budgets preserve or improve retrieval quality for most models in our ablation. The Pareto frontier contains the leading embedding models and one LLM, Gemini 3.1 Pro. These results support a division of labour: use embedding models for similarity, classification, and clustering, and reserve LLMs for reasoning-intensive retrieval. Our code, datasets, and results are publicly available at https://github.com/embeddings-benchmark/embedders-dilemma.
Modern LLMs excel at reasoning and instruction following, enabling users to express complex and diverse information needs. However, conventional retrievers largely rely on surface-level matching between queries and documents, resulting in a growing gap between how users express their needs and how retrievers interpret them. In this paper, we present GEM, a generative embedding model that augments retrieval through its own knowledge by explicitly reasoning about user intent and relevance criteria. GEM unifies generation and embedding within a single model: it first reasons over the query, then appends an embedding token to encode the enriched context for retrieval. \zhili{Evaluated on reasoning-intensive and instruction-following retrieval tasks, GEM demonstrates the effectiveness of its reasoning-augmented retrieval, outperforming its non-reasoning variant and matching baselines using substantially larger models.} Furthermore, GEM's generative nature allows test-time compute scaling via prompting to further enhance retrieval performance. Our code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/GEM.
Choosing the right text embedding model is one of the most consequential -- and most frequently under-examined -- decisions in building a retrieval or search system, yet the model that tops a leaderboard is rarely the best choice for a given deployment. This report develops a practical, evidence-based framework for embedding model selection, built on a benchmarking study that evaluates T3EM (Text 3 Embedding Model), a commercial API-based embedding model, against a broad set of open-source alternatives on English-language retrieval tasks, and situates these findings within the wider Massive Text Embedding Benchmark (MTEB) landscape spanning classification, clustering, semantic similarity, reranking, pair classification, bitext mining, and summarization. Beyond raw benchmark scores, the report traces the full path from embedding model to retrieved result -- how embeddings are produced, how they are indexed and searched at scale, and how document chunking strategy shapes retrieval quality -- so that model choice can be reasoned about as one decision within a complete retrieval pipeline rather than in isolation. The result is a consolidated set of practical recommendations for selecting an embedding model according to task, latency, cost, and deployment constraints.