Selecting Open-Weight Language Models for Zero-Shot Intent Classification: A Systematic Evaluation of 41 Models
TL;DR
The 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 have become saturated and no longer meaningfully discriminate among current open-weight models.
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.