When Do LLMs Replace Fine-Tuned NLU? A Decision Framework for Intent Detection in Production Conversational Systems

Sicherheitsmeldung mit Schweregrad noch nicht bewertet. Technische Details im Tab „Originaltext“; empfohlene Schritte in der Checkliste.

Originaltext der Quelle (nicht übersetzt) – die deutsche Zusammenfassung findest du im Tab „Kurzfassung".

arXiv:2608.20371v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A common claim is that zero-shot large language models (LLMs) can replace fine-tuned NLU classifiers for intent detection. We test this claim head-to-head and find that the honest answer is: it depends on the intent space. On full ATIS and CLINC150 we compare a fine-tuned RoBERTa, a TF-IDF+logistic-regression baseline, sentence-embedding kNN, and Claude Haiku zero-shot, reporting bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and paired significance tests. When abundant in-domain labels exist, fine-tuned RoBERTa is as good or better and three orders of magnitude cheaper and faster: on ATIS it beats Claude zero-shot by 11.8 points (95.9 vs. 84.1, p<0.001). On the broad 150-intent CLINC150 schema the two are statistically tied (89.1 vs. 88.5, p=0.24): the LLM matches a fully supervised model with no training data. The LLM's advantages appear in three production-relevant regimes: out-of-scope detection (OOS recall 85.6 vs. 58.1 for RoBERTa); robustness to realistic ASR noise via a controlled text-to-speech to noise to Whisper pipeline (92.5 vs. 80.0 at 0 dB); and dynamic per-deployment schemas, where a classifier trained on one app's intents scores 0% on a new app's intents while the schema-prompted LLM serves both at ~94% with zero retraining. We distill these findings into a decision framework for practitioners.

Vollständiger Originalartikel ↗

• Betroffenheit im eigenen Stack prüfen: Versionen/Komponenten abgleichen.
• Originalquelle / Hersteller-Advisory lesen: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.20371
• Verfügbaren Patch oder Workaround einspielen und dokumentieren.