AI & ML
Beyond the Vote: When Do LLMs Add Value to Retrieval-Based Tabular Classification?
arXiv cs.IR0 views
arXiv:2610.29520v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-based in-context learning (ICL) enables large language models (LLMs) to predict tabular labels from similar examples, but it remains unclear whether LLM inference improves on direct voting over those same examples. We address this question by comparing four general-purpose LLMs with distance-weighted nearest-neighbor voting (Distance-KNN) using identical retrieved neighbors across 19 tabular classification datasets. With the number of demonstrations fixed, enlarging the retrieval candidate pool improves accuracy for all predictors, yet Distance-KNN achieves the highest mean accuracy at every pool size. More detailed analyses reveal that LLM gains are concentrated where retrieved neighbors exhibit low label consensus and vary across models. These gains further depend on the average feature-space distance to the test query: under low label consensus, some LLMs outperform Distance-KNN in close and intermediate neighborhoods, but all fall behind on average in the most distant group. Complementary experiments on the number of demonstrations, prompt formulation, retrieval representation, and label-balanced demonstration selection largely preserve the overall findings. These results characterize when LLM inference adds predictive value beyond distance-weighted voting in retrieval-based tabular ICL.
Source:https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.29520PreviousDirectional Posterior Feedback Fusion for Query Reformulation in Dense RetrievalNextX-Embedding: Two-Stage Training for Multilingual Patent Prior-Art Retrieval
Related posts
Shutting the Door on the XCPE Botnet (Threat Intelligence)
0LWN.net

Canva Brings Free All-in-One Affinity App to iPad
0MacRumors
GPT-Rosalind-6 System Card Addendum
0Hacker News New
Mediroute: An open-source AI platform exposing global drug price disparities
0Hacker News New
An intuition for how neural nets can understand text
0Hacker News New
An open LLM read 291 retracted papers: 7.7% of passages mention the retraction
0Hacker News New