Do LLM Embedding Spaces Recover Expert Structure?

Text embeddings are widely used to analyse large corpora of complex texts. However, it is unclear whether the embeddings capture the same semantic distances as the human experts using them. Ensuring alignment between embedding representations and human intentions is essential for valid analyses. We present the Stakeholder Grounding Exercise, a method for making expert associations explicit and grounding embedding model results in human understanding. In our primary case study on Danish policy issues, we find that neural text embeddings are substantially less reliable than human experts (19-26 pp gap), and that this misalignment propagates to downstream clustering performance (Spearman $ρ=0.9$ between exercise ranking and cluster quality). A secondary study on US Federal AI use cases replicates the gap (16pp) in English, using a digital protocol and a different community of experts -- demonstrating that the gap is not an artefact of a single instrument or domain. The Stakeholder Grounding Exercise offers a practical method for assessing whether embedding models capture the semantic distinctions that matter most to domain experts.

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.

The explosive growth of large language models (LLMs) has created a heterogeneous and poorly documented ecosystem, making systematic model comparison increasingly important for provenance auditing, security analysis, and model selection. Existing representation methods struggle to address this setting efficiently. Approaches analyzing internal parameters are powerful when architectures are compatible, but face scalability barriers under structural heterogeneity, while methods relying on external outputs may conflate models with similar behaviors and are difficult to align in richer output spaces across different tokenizers. To bridge this gap, we propose ABLE (Attribution-Based Large-model Embedding), a framework that leverages the interpretability space to construct model representations. By aggregating gradient-based feature attributions via a tokenizer-agnostic word-level alignment, ABLE captures model-specific input-sensitivity patterns rather than only surface-level outputs. Beyond empirical utility, we provide a stability analysis showing that, under standard regularity assumptions for differentiable Transformer-style models, ABLE induces a Lipschitz-continuous parameter-to-embedding map with finite-sample convergence guarantees. Extensive experiments on 239 open-source LLMs demonstrate that our training-free approach achieves competitive or superior performance in relation prediction, model routing, and benchmark score prediction.