Selecting Open-Weight Language Models for Zero-Shot Intent Classification: A Systematic Evaluation of 41 Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27421v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 19:42:33 GMT
• Title: Selecting Open-Weight Language Models for Zero-Shot Intent Classification: A Systematic Evaluation of 41 Models
• Abstract summary: We present a systematic zero-shot evaluation of 41 open-weight language models spanning 15 families and the 135M--9B parameter range.<n>We analyze confidence calibration, robustness to realistic input perturbations, statistical reliability of model rankings, deployment efficiency, and benchmark saturation.<n>These findings provide practical guidance for selecting and evaluating open-weight language models for intent classification.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Intent classification is a core component of task-oriented dialogue systems, yet practitioners have limited systematic guidance for selecting deployable open-weight language models under compute, latency, and robustness constraints. We present a systematic zero-shot evaluation of 41 open-weight language models spanning 15 families and the 135M--9B parameter range across eight English single-label intent-classification datasets. A ninth dataset, ATIS, uses five labeled demonstrations and is reported as an auxiliary five-shot result. The evaluation includes standard benchmarks, a large-scale voice-assistant corpus, and production-derived e-commerce datasets. Beyond exact-match accuracy, we analyze confidence calibration, robustness to realistic input perturbations, statistical reliability of model rankings, deployment efficiency, and benchmark saturation. Our results show that instruction-tuned 3B models can outperform several evaluated 7B base models, that differences among leading models on MASSIVE are statistically indistinguishable under pairwise McNemar tests, and that widely used benchmarks such as SNIPS have become saturated and no longer meaningfully discriminate among current open-weight models. Instruction tuning's effect on confidence calibration is inconsistent rather than uniformly harmful. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting and evaluating open-weight language models for intent classification.

Related papers

• Latent Performance Profiling of Large Language Models [47.009623327601226]
  We introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions.<n>Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size.<n>We show that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T14:41:26Z)
• What Single-Prompt Accuracy Misses: A Multi-Variant Reliability Audit of Language Models [0.0]
  Single-prompt accuracy is the dominant way to benchmark language models, but it can miss reliability failures that matter.<n>We evaluate a 15-model open-weight corpus, with the main reliability analyses focused on 10 instruct models across five classification and reasoning benchmarks.<n>We find three broad results. First, evaluation design can materially change the conclusion.<n>Second, confidence signals are fragile. On MMLU-Pro, every primary model verbally reports confidence substantially above both its accuracy and its token-probability confidence on the same rows, and verbal parse rate can collapse for a single model on a single prompt variant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T20:05:08Z)
• MIRROR: A Hierarchical Benchmark for Metacognitive Calibration in Large Language Models [0.0]
  MIRROR is a benchmark that evaluates whether large language models can use self-knowledge to make better decisions.<n>We evaluate 16 models from 8 labs across approximately 250,000 evaluation instances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T08:41:12Z)
• Explicit Uncertainty Modeling for Active CLIP Adaptation with Dual Prompt Tuning [51.99383151474742]
  We propose a robust uncertainty modeling framework for active CLIP adaptation based on dual-prompt tuning.<n>We show that our method consistently outperforms existing active learning methods under the same annotation budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T09:01:55Z)
• Benchmark^2: Systematic Evaluation of LLM Benchmarks [66.2731798872668]
  We propose Benchmark2, a comprehensive framework comprising three complementary metrics.<n>We conduct experiments across 15 benchmarks spanning mathematics, reasoning, and knowledge domains.<n>Our analysis reveals significant quality variations among existing benchmarks and demonstrates that selective benchmark construction can achieve comparable evaluation performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T14:59:03Z)
• Explicit Reasoning Makes Better Judges: A Systematic Study on Accuracy, Efficiency, and Robustness [12.513874407270142]
  We present a systematic comparison of "thinking" and "non-thinking" Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate both accuracy and computational efficiency (FLOPs) on RewardBench tasks.<n>Our results show that thinking models achieve approximately 10% points higher accuracy with little overhead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-09T18:36:02Z)
• Accelerated Test-Time Scaling with Model-Free Speculative Sampling [58.69141724095398]
  We introduce STAND (STochastic Adaptive N-gram Drafting), a novel model-free speculative decoding approach.<n>We show that STAND reduces inference latency by 60-65% compared to standard autoregressive decoding.<n>As a model-free approach, STAND can be applied to any existing language model without additional training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T07:31:18Z)
• Reliable Decision Support with LLMs: A Framework for Evaluating Consistency in Binary Text Classification Applications [0.7124971549479361]
  This study introduces a framework for evaluating consistency in large language model (LLM) binary text classification.<n>We determine sample size requirements, develop metrics for invalid responses, and evaluate intra- and inter-rater reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T21:12:58Z)
• How Far Can Camels Go? Exploring the State of Instruction Tuning on Open Resources [117.6496550359768]
  This work explores recent advances in instruction-tuning language models on a range of open instruction-following datasets. We provide a large set of instruction-tuned models from 6.7B to 65B parameters in size, trained on 12 instruction datasets. We evaluate them on their factual knowledge, reasoning, multilinguality, coding, and open-ended instruction following abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T19:59:23Z)
• Preserving Knowledge Invariance: Rethinking Robustness Evaluation of Open Information Extraction [49.15931834209624]
  We present the first benchmark that simulates the evaluation of open information extraction models in the real world.<n>We design and annotate a large-scale testbed in which each example is a knowledge-invariant clique.<n>By further elaborating the robustness metric, a model is judged to be robust if its performance is consistently accurate on the overall cliques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T12:05:09Z)
• Effective Robustness against Natural Distribution Shifts for Models with Different Training Data [113.21868839569]
  "Effective robustness" measures the extra out-of-distribution robustness beyond what can be predicted from the in-distribution (ID) performance. We propose a new evaluation metric to evaluate and compare the effective robustness of models trained on different data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-02T19:28:41Z)
• Discover, Explanation, Improvement: An Automatic Slice Detection Framework for Natural Language Processing [72.14557106085284]
  slice detection models (SDM) automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints. This paper proposes a benchmark named "Discover, Explain, improve (DEIM)" for classification NLP tasks. Our evaluation shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T19:00:00Z)
• Plex: Towards Reliability using Pretrained Large Model Extensions [69.13326436826227]
  We develop ViT-Plex and T5-Plex, pretrained large model extensions for vision and language modalities, respectively. Plex greatly improves the state-of-the-art across reliability tasks, and simplifies the traditional protocol. We demonstrate scaling effects over model sizes up to 1B parameters and pretraining dataset sizes up to 4B examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-15T11:39:37Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.