Benchmark Almanac

DataPrep-Bench Law

DataFlow 77.2 tops its leaderboard GPT-5.2 76.4 leads the models we track
Not in model cards

Models prepare training data for the law domain. The score is the published downstream average after backbone training.

One track of DataPrep-Bench. The DataPrep-Bench record keeps lab scores that combine tracks.

Released
May 2026
Kind
Machine learning engineering
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
Claude Opus 4.6 #37 on the capability index
Last model added
February 2026
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

The quality of training data fundamentally determines the capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet no unified benchmark exists to measure how well LLMs, agents, and data-centric workflows actually prepare training data end to end. We view LLM-driven data preparation as comprising two complementary capabilities: data construction, which transforms raw sources into supervised training data, and data quality evaluation, which predicts the training value of candidate datasets before downstream training; throughout, "quality" refers to downstream training utility rather than surface-level textual properties. We introduce DataPrep-Bench, the first unified benchmark that jointly evaluates both capabilities under a shared downstream-grounded protocol over six domains and multiple base models. For data construction, methods consume identical raw sources and are scored by fine-tuning a base model on their outputs jointly with Dolly-15k; alongside this track we release Data-Construction-Skill, a skill-guided agent that lifts the Dolly-only baseline by nearly 20 points absolute on Llama-3.1-8B Finance and is competitive with the strongest agent- and DataFlow-based methods in knowledge-extraction-dense domains. For data quality evaluation, scoring functions are scored by Pearson correlation with downstream performance on a shared candidate pool; we release the Distributional Alignment Score (DAS), a distribution-based evaluator that uses MMD between a candidate dataset and a domain proxy. DAS attains the strongest cross-model correlation in four of six domains and is the only metric clearing r > 0.70 simultaneously in Math, Science, and Medical, outperforming existing quality-, diversity-, and heuristic-based evaluators. DataPrep-Bench provides a unified, downstream-grounded framework for measuring progress on both capabilities as co-equal targets of LLM-driven data preparation.

Abstract of DataPrep-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs as Training Data Preparators (arXiv:2607.20465, CC0)
8
Entries on its own leaderboard, 5 models we track

DataFlow tops the leaderboard with 77.2

Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders. The best model we track is GPT-5.2, at 76.4.

The newest model with a score here came out in February 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:

  1. 1 DataFlow Qwen2.5-7B 77.2
  2. 2 GPT-5.2 Llama-3.1-8B 76.4
  3. 3 GPT-5.3 Codex Llama-3.1-8B 76.3
  4. 4 Claude Opus 4.6 Qwen2.5-7B 75.6
  5. 5 Qwen3.5-Plus Qwen2.5-7B 75.6
  6. 6 DataFlow-Skill Qwen2.5-7B 74.7
  7. 7 Gemini 3.0 Pro [snapshot unspecified] Qwen2.5-7B 74.7
  8. 8 GLM-4.7 Qwen2.5-7B 73.1

Source: Official DataPrep-Bench Law leaderboard

#EntryScoreSettingDateSource
1 DataFlow 77.2 Qwen2.5-7B, DataFlow-based Generators Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5.2 76.4 Llama-3.1-8B, LLM-based Generators Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
3 GPT-5.3 Codex 76.3 Llama-3.1-8B, Agent-based Generators Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
4 Claude Opus 4.6 75.6 Qwen2.5-7B, LLM-based Generators Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
5 Qwen3.5-Plus 75.6 Qwen2.5-7B, Agent-based Generators Feb 2026 Official leaderboard
6 DataFlow-Skill 74.7 Qwen2.5-7B, DataFlow-based Generators Official leaderboard
7 Gemini 3.0 Pro [snapshot unspecified] 74.7 Qwen2.5-7B, LLM-based Generators Official leaderboard
8 GLM-4.7 73.1 Qwen2.5-7B, Agent-based Generators Dec 2025 Official leaderboard

Scores at each effort level

Models the leaderboard ran at two or more effort levels. We don’t have enough cost data here to say what the extra effort costs.

Lowest effort to highest, light to dark
GPT-5.2 LLM-based Generators
Qwen2.5-7B
76.4
GPT-5.3 Codex Agent-based Generators
Qwen2.5-7B
76.3
Claude Opus 4.6 LLM-based Generators
Llama-3.1-8B Qwen2.5-7B
75.6
Qwen3.5-Plus Agent-based Generators
Llama-3.1-8B Qwen2.5-7B
75.6
Claude Opus 4.6 Data-Construction-Skill
Llama-3.1-8B Qwen2.5-7B
73.6
GLM-4.7 Agent-based Generators
Llama-3.1-8B
73.1
GPT-5.2 Agent-based Generators
Qwen2.5-7B Llama-3.1-8B
72.9
Claude Opus 4.6 Agent-based Generators
Qwen2.5-7B Llama-3.1-8B
69.8

Source: Official DataPrep-Bench Law leaderboard

ModelEffortHarnessScoreCost per taskOutput tokens
GPT-5.2 Llama-3.1-8B LLM-based Generators 76.4
GPT-5.3 Codex Llama-3.1-8B Agent-based Generators 76.3
Claude Opus 4.6 Qwen2.5-7B LLM-based Generators 75.6
GPT-5.3 Codex Qwen2.5-7B Agent-based Generators 75.6
Qwen3.5-Plus Qwen2.5-7B Agent-based Generators 75.6
GPT-5.2 Qwen2.5-7B LLM-based Generators 75.0
Claude Opus 4.6 Qwen2.5-7B Data-Construction-Skill 73.6
Qwen3.5-Plus Llama-3.1-8B Agent-based Generators 73.2
GLM-4.7 Qwen2.5-7B Agent-based Generators 73.1
GPT-5.2 Llama-3.1-8B Agent-based Generators 72.9
GLM-4.7 Llama-3.1-8B Agent-based Generators 72.2
Claude Opus 4.6 Llama-3.1-8B LLM-based Generators 71.0
Claude Opus 4.6 Llama-3.1-8B Data-Construction-Skill 70.2
Claude Opus 4.6 Llama-3.1-8B Agent-based Generators 69.8
Claude Opus 4.6 Qwen2.5-7B Agent-based Generators 57.0
GPT-5.2 Qwen2.5-7B Agent-based Generators 56.8

Number one over time

Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.

OpenAI
Own leaderboard Not tested since May 2026
GPT-5.2 76.4

Source: Official DataPrep-Bench Law leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard
55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 2026 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 2026

Source: Official DataPrep-Bench Law leaderboard

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in AI research

All 104 in AI research
  • PaperBench In use Agent replicates ICML 2024 papers from scratch. LLM judge grades against author-written hierarchical rubrics. Qwen 3.8 Max 93%
  • MLS-Bench In use Agent must invent one algorithmic change in an ML research scaffold whose gain transfers across settings. Scored relative to human baselines. Claude Fable 5.1 50.3%
  • PostTrainBench 1.2 In use CLI agent gets a base model, one H100 and a time budget to post-train it for a target benchmark. Scored on normalized gain. Claude Fable 5.1 44.6%
  • MLE-bench In use Kaggle-style ML engineering competitions. Agent trains models and is scored against competition leaderboards. GPT-6 Astra 93.8%
  • KernelBench In use Replace PyTorch operators with faster custom GPU kernels. Scored on correctness and speedup. MiniMax-M3 28.8%
  • PMPP-Hard In use Agents write GPU kernels for 69 tasks that must be correct, and on 48 of them also run within 1.25 times the reference time. The score is the area under the solved-tasks curve over a 10-hour budget, out of 690 task-hours. Inkling 2 Small 494.3