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.
We built a compact convolutional network (1.11 M parameters) for 46-class DHCD Devanagari recognition and reached 99.73%, the highest reported at 15.6x smaller than prior state-of-the-art. We have effectively reached the saturation point: every model tested, large teacher ensembles included, hits the same 11-error intrinsic floor. No configuration achieves a statistically clear win under exact McNemar tests with Wilson confidence intervals. Even without knowledge distillation, our student matches the nearest large-model baseline (17.32 M parameters; McNemar $p = 0.345$). Outside of DHCD, zero-shot on CMATERdb digits gives 76.6% and fine-tuning reaches 97.8%; corruption robustness is also far better than large baselines (mean corruption accuracy 75.7% vs. 38.7%). All artifacts are at https://github.com/Ampixa/barnamala.
Nitya Nadgir, Sayash Kapoor, Kangheng Liu +11cs.AI
When a benchmark's accuracy saturates, it is often retired and replaced with a more challenging version. We show that this approach privileges accuracy and misses the opportunity to study six other key dimensions of agent performance: construct validity issues such as shortcuts, out-of-distribution generalizability, efficiency, reliability, the relative importance of the model versus the scaffold, and uplift from human-agent collaboration. We use CORE-Bench Hard, a benchmark for computational reproducibility of scientific code, as a case study to demonstrate that measuring agents along these dimensions yields meaningful insights into agent performance even after accuracy saturates. First, we surface threats to construct validity in CORE-Bench Hard that are difficult to anticipate with less capable agents. We introduce an improved benchmark, CORE-Bench v1.1, and an out-of-distribution task suite, CORE-Bench OOD. Second, we find that despite accuracy saturation, CORE-Bench v1.1 remains useful for measuring efficiency, reliability, model performance, and scaffold performance. Finally, we conduct a small-scale randomized experiment to measure uplift from human-agent collaboration on real-world computational reproducibility tasks. We find a statistically significant speedup by about a factor of two -- likely underestimated due to one-fifth of human-only reproductions reaching the time limit before completing -- and describe various other findings. Together, our contributions present a more rigorous alternative to the dominant accuracy-centric evaluation paradigm.
Deep learning EEG denoising architectures have scaled from tens of thousands to tens of millions of parameters, yet no prior study has isolated model capacity as the experimental variable or tested whether reconstruction metrics predict downstream neural-signal utility. We address both gaps by fixing architecture, loss, data split, and training recipe while sweeping only channel width from 1.05K to 40.26K parameters in a minimal depthwise-separable convolutional U-Net. Models were evaluated on the EEGDenoiseNet benchmark, cross-dataset BCI transfer tests, controlled baseline retraining, and downstream motor-imagery classification with five decoder families across all nine BCI Competition IV-2a subjects. Reconstruction performance saturated by 3-6.5K parameters, with post-elbow gains of at most 0.015 correlation coefficient per log10-parameter unit. An 8.46M-parameter baseline retrained under the same pipeline matched the 40.26K compact variant on EOG--a 200x parameter gap yielding no advantage--while a Patch-Transformer control reproduced the same diminishing-return shape. Downstream evaluation exposed a classifier-dependent metric-utility gap: reconstruction-optimized denoising significantly degraded CSP+LDA classification across all nine subjects and three artifact types (best denoised accuracy 0.547 vs. 0.612 noisy baseline; Bonferroni p=0.0488), persisting on naturally recorded trials (Delta=-0.047; BH-FDR q=0.0049). End-to-end neural decoders showed variable or neutral effects. Standard EEG denoising benchmarks are saturated far below current model capacity, and reconstruction metrics do not predict BCI utility. Ultra-compact models at 33-46 KB and 1.27-2.61M FLOPs/segment are practical for edge deployment. These findings argue for capacity-controlled evaluation, harder task-aware benchmarks, and mandatory downstream validation.