mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Text Embedding Meets Large Language Model: A Comprehensive Survey

arXiv 2412.09165 ↗First posted 12 Dec 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.IRcited by 19

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Text embedding has become a foundational technology in natural language processing (NLP) during the deep learning era, driving advancements across a wide array of downstream tasks. While many natural language understanding challenges can now be modeled using generative paradigms and leverage the robust generative and comprehension capabilities of large language models (LLMs), numerous practical applications - such as semantic matching, clustering, and information retrieval - continue to rely on text embeddings for their efficiency and effectiveness. Therefore, integrating LLMs with text embeddings has become a major research focus in recent years. In this survey, we categorize the interplay between LLMs and text embeddings into three overarching themes: (1) LLM-augmented text embedding, enhancing traditional embedding methods with LLMs; (2) LLMs as text embedders, adapting their innate capabilities for high-quality embedding; and (3) Text embedding understanding with LLMs, leveraging LLMs to analyze and interpret embeddings. By organizing recent works based on interaction patterns rather than specific downstream applications, we offer a novel and systematic overview of contributions from various research and application domains in the era of LLMs. Furthermore, we highlight the unresolved challenges that persisted in the pre-LLM era with pre-trained language models (PLMs) and explore the emerging obstacles brought forth by LLMs. Building on this analysis, we outline prospective directions for the evolution of text embedding, addressing both theoretical and practical opportunities in the rapidly advancing landscape of NLP.

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 12 Dec 2024.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 13; 2026: 6.

19 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2025The Geometry of Reasoning: Flowing Logics in Representation Spacecited by 21
  2. 2025Can Large Language Models Match Tutoring System Adaptivity? A Benchmarking Studycited by 17
  3. 2025Contrastive Prompting Enhances Sentence Embeddings in LLMs through Inference-Time Steeringcited by 13
  4. 2025DS-STAR: Data Science Agent for Solving Diverse Tasks across Heterogeneous Formats and Open-Ended Queriescited by 6
  5. 2025Benchmarking Educational LLMs with Analytics: A Case Study on Gender Bias in Feedbackcited by 5
  6. 2026The Embedder's Dilemma: LLMs Are Better, but at What Cost?cited by 4
  7. 2025On The Role of Pretrained Language Models in General-Purpose Text Embeddings: A Surveycited by 3
  8. 2025Fine-grained Video Dubbing Duration Alignment with Segment Supervised Preference Optimizationcited by 3
  9. 2025Learning to Compress: Unlocking the Potential of Large Language Models for Text Representationcited by 3
  10. 2025Gaussian mixture models as a proxy for interacting language modelscited by 2
  11. 2025Med-gte-hybrid: A contextual embedding transformer model for extracting actionable information from clinical textscited by 1
  12. 2026DRGW: Learning Disentangled Representations for Robust Graph Watermarkingcited by 1
7 more
  1. 2026Latent Abstraction for Retrieval-Augmented Generationcited by 1
  2. 2025LLM-BT-Terms: Back-Translation as a Framework for Terminology Standardization and Dynamic Semantic Embeddingcited by 0
  3. 2025Universal Laboratory Model: prognosis of abnormal clinical outcomes based on routine testscited by 0
  4. 2025Semi-Supervised Synthetic Data Generation with Fine-Grained Relevance Control for Short Video Search Relevance Modelingcited by 0
  5. 2026The Pre-Training Study of Expanded-SPLADE Models on Web Document Titlescited by 0
  6. 2026ReverseEOL: Improving Training-free Text Embeddings via Text Reversal in Decoder-only LLMscited by 0
  7. 2026Training-Free versus Training-Based Intent Classification in LLMs: Accuracy, Robustness, and Failure Modescited by 0