From Confusion to Clarity: Confusion-Aware Retrieval and Knowledge Injection for Text Classification

Many human-centered tasks, including natural language inference (NLI) and emotion recognition (ER), have multiple plausible interpretations, leading to label ambiguity and challenging disagreements across human annotators. As LLMs are increasingly deployed in real-world settings, faithfully modeling such ambiguity is essential to identify contested inputs, preserve variability in ambiguous cases, and capture the full distribution of human judgments. Yet, existing LLM alignment approaches have predominantly assumed a single correct label, excluding annotator disagreement during optimization. Instead of treating this ambiguity as noise, we show how to treat it as information that improves model behavior through a new algorithm called SMARTLY HANDLING AMBIGUOUS LABELS IN ALIGNING LLMS (SHALA-LLM). This reinforcement learning framework provides a new way for LLMs to learn directly from annotator distributions while dynamically prioritizing highly ambiguous samples during optimization. Experiments on ambiguity-sensitive NLI and ER benchmarks, including ChaosNLI, GoEmotions, and MSP-Podcast, demonstrate that SHALA-LLM improves agreement with annotator label distributions, e.g. on ChaosNLI, it reduces Jensen-Shannon Distance by up to 62.1%. At the same time, SHALA-LLM improves F1 by up to 16.7%, showing that modeling annotator disagreement can also strengthen classification performance.

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.

Existing Natural Language Processing (NLP) resources often lack the task-specific information required for real-world problems and provide limited coverage of lesser-known or newly introduced entities. For example, business organizations and health care providers may need to be classified into a variety of different taxonomic schemes for specific application tasks. Our goal is to enable domain experts to easily create a task-specific classifier for entities by providing only entity names and gold labels as training data. Our framework then dynamically acquires descriptive text about each entity, which is subsequently used as the basis for producing a text-based classifier. We propose a novel text acquisition method that leverages both web and large language models (LLMs). We evaluate our proposed framework on two classification problems in distinct domains: (i) classifying organizations into Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes, which categorize organizations based on their business activities; and (ii) classifying healthcare providers into healthcare provider taxonomy codes, which represent a provider's medical specialty and area of practice. Our best-performing model achieved macro-averaged F1-scores of 82.3% and 72.9% on the SIC code and healthcare taxonomy code classification tasks, respectively.