mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Beyond the Hype: Embeddings vs. Prompting for Multiclass Classification Tasks

arXiv 2504.04277 ↗First posted 5 Apr 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Are traditional classification approaches irrelevant in this era of AI hype? We show that there are multiclass classification problems where predictive models holistically outperform LLM prompt-based frameworks. Given text and images from home-service project descriptions provided by Thumbtack customers, we build embeddings-based softmax models that predict the professional category (e.g., handyman, bathroom remodeling) associated with each problem description. We then compare against prompts that ask state-of-the-art LLM models to solve the same problem. We find that the embeddings approach outperforms the best LLM prompts in terms of accuracy, calibration, latency, and financial cost. In particular, the embeddings approach has 49.5% higher accuracy than the prompting approach, and its superiority is consistent across text-only, image-only, and text-image problem descriptions. Furthermore, it yields well-calibrated probabilities, which we later use as confidence signals to provide contextualized user experience during deployment. On the contrary, prompting scores are overly uninformative. Finally, the embeddings approach is 14 and 81 times faster than prompting in processing images and text respectively, while under realistic deployment assumptions, it can be up to 10 times cheaper. Based on these results, we deployed a variation of the embeddings approach, and through A/B testing we observed performance consistent with our offline analysis. Our study shows that for multiclass classification problems that can leverage proprietary datasets, an embeddings-based approach may yield unequivocally better results. Hence, scientists, practitioners, engineers, and business leaders can use our study to go beyond the hype and consider appropriate predictive models for their classification use cases.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2025.

Builds on

5 of 23 references.

References · 5

  1. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  2. 2020Pooling Methods in Deep Neural Networks, a Reviewcited by 52
  3. 2023Generative AI Text Classification using Ensemble LLM Approachescited by 29
  4. 2024GRILLBot In Practice: Lessons and Tradeoffs Deploying Large Language Models for Adaptable Conversational Task Assistantscited by 6
  5. 2024Large Scale Generative AI Text Applied to Sports and Musiccited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.