Political Science LLM Benchmark
33 political-science text-coding tasks, 100 texts each (~3,300 items). Models scored by mean F1 against human-coded labels.
31 models. Open-weight models run on one GPU. Some texts may be in training data.
In the authors’ words
Can researchers use local open-weight models instead of commercial APIs for LLM text classification? Local models avoid marginal API charges, keep data on the researcher's machine, and make exact model versions easier to preserve. I benchmark five local models against four commercial API models on 34 political science classification tasks. Local models are often competitive, especially on simpler tasks. In a task-specific oracle comparison, local models match or exceed API performance on 9 tasks; on average, the best API model exceeds the best local model by 0.015 F1. The four strongest observed model means fall within 0.021 F1. API models have their clearest edge on complex tasks with many labels or multiple outputs per item. Batching several items in one prompt usually reduces local runtime per item, but specific model-task pairs can return invalid response formats or labels. Taken together, the results make local open-weight models a practical candidate alternative for many political science classification tasks, provided researchers validate candidate models on task-specific labels and check batching reliability before scaling up.
- Level
- University Undergraduates and entry-level professionals
- Scored
- Checked automatically A program checks the result against an answer key, unit tests or the expected final state.
- Answers
- Multiple choice
Claude Opus 5 leads with 71.4% among models released by Sep 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on 2 Nov 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in Sep 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Terra
- GPT-6.1 Sol
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- and 12 more
- 71.4 Claude Opus 5
- 69.7 Claude Sonnet 5
- 69.2 GPT-5.6 Sol
- 68.7
Gemini 3.8 Flash
- 68.3 GPT-5.6 Terra
- 68.1
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
- 67.9 GPT-6 Astra
- 67.5 Qwen3.8 Flash-Next
- 67.5
Llama 3.1-70B
- 67.0 GPT-5.6 Luna
- 66.9
Llama 3.3 70B
- 66.6
Qwen3.6 27B
- 66.5
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
- 66.4
Gemma 4 31B IT
- 66.3
DeepSeek-V4-Pro
- 66.1 Jev 1.13
- 66.0
Gemma 3 27B
- 65.1
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B
- 65.0
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
- 64.9
Qwen2.5-32B
- 64.8
Qwen2.5-72B
- 64.8
Qwen3-32B
- 64.3
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B
- 64.2
Mistral Small 3.1
- 63.5
Qwen 3.8 27B
- 63.4
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B
- 63.0
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct
- 62.9
Mistral Small 4
- 61.9
Qwen1.5-32B
- 60.2 glm-4.7-flash
- 59.3
Qwen3-30B-A3B
- 1 Claude Opus 5 71.4%
- 2 Claude Sonnet 5 69.7%
- 3 GPT-5.6 Sol 69.2%
- 4
Gemini 3.8 Flash 68.7%
- 5 GPT-5.6 Terra 68.3%
- 6
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite 68.1%
- 7 GPT-6 Astra 67.9%
- 8 Qwen3.8 Flash-Next fp8, 2 gpus 67.5%
- 9
Llama 3.1-70B fp8 67.5%
- 10 GPT-5.6 Luna 67%
- 11
Llama 3.3 70B dynamic fp8 66.9%
- 12
Qwen3.6 27B fp8 66.6%
- 13
DeepSeek-V4-Flash 66.5%
- 14
Gemma 4 31B IT w4a16 66.4%
- 15
DeepSeek-V4-Pro 66.3%
- 16 Jev 1.13 66.1%
- 17
Gemma 3 27B dynamic fp8 66%
- 18
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B fp8 65.1%
- 19
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B fp8 65%
- 20
Qwen2.5-32B bf16 64.9%
- 21
Qwen2.5-72B dynamic fp8 64.8%
- 22
Qwen3-32B bf16 64.8%
- 23
Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B fp8 64.3%
- 24
Mistral Small 3.1 bf16 64.2%
- 25
Qwen 3.8 27B fp8 63.5%
- 26
DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-32B bf16 63.4%
- 27
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct Jul 2025, fp8 63%
- 28
Mistral Small 4 nvfp4 62.9%
- 29
Qwen1.5-32B 61.9%
- 30 glm-4.7-flash 60.2%
- 31
Qwen3-30B-A3B bf16 59.3%
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5 | 71.4% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 2 | Claude Sonnet 5 | 69.7% | Jun 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 3 | GPT-5.6 Sol | 69.2% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 4 | | 68.7% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 5 | GPT-5.6 Terra | 68.3% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 6 | | 68.1% | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 7 | GPT-6 Astra | 67.9% | Sep 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 8 | Qwen3.8 Flash-Next | 67.5% | fp8, 2 gpus | Official leaderboard | |
| 9 | | 67.5% | fp8 | Jul 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | GPT-5.6 Luna | 67% | Jul 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 11 | | 66.9% | dynamic fp8 | Dec 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | | 66.6% | fp8 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | | 66.5% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 14 | | 66.4% | w4a16 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | | 66.3% | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 16 | Jev 1.13 | 66.1% | Official leaderboard | ||
| 17 | | 66% | dynamic fp8 | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 18 | | 65.1% | fp8 | Sep 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 19 | | 65% | fp8 | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 20 | | 64.9% | bf16 | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 21 | | 64.8% | dynamic fp8 | Sep 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 22 | | 64.8% | bf16 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 23 | | 64.3% | fp8 | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 24 | | 64.2% | bf16 | Mar 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 25 | | 63.5% | fp8 | Aug 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 26 | | 63.4% | bf16 | Jan 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 27 | | 63% | fp8 | Jul 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 28 | | 62.9% | nvfp4 | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 29 | | 61.9% | Feb 2024 | Official leaderboard | |
| 30 | glm-4.7-flash | 60.2% | Jan 2026 | Official leaderboard | |
| 31 | | 59.3% | bf16 | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
3 models have held number one since its release in May 2026
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Other
- Personal Superintelligence Index (Meta) In use Meta's composite of seven personal and knowledge-work evals: Agents' Last Exam, AutomationBench-AA, FocusBench, JobBench, GDP.pdf, VBT and DRACO.
- Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5 In use Version 5 of Artificial Analysis's index: nine evaluations in four equal categories, most with private test sets, run three times each in its own agent harness.
Gemini 4 Carbon 59.0
- Anthropic ECI (AECI) Only in system cards Index that combines a basket of capability benchmarks into one capability score to track trends across Anthropic models. Claude Opus 5.5 169.4
- Qwen in-house English automatic evaluation Only in system cards Models answer Qwen in-house English datasets on knowledge, comprehension, coding, math and related skills. Skills and weights change between reports.
Qwen2-72B 72.9%
- Recognition of model-written user turns (Anthropic) Only in system cards Models write synthetic user turns for real Claude Code transcripts, then judge which version is real. Score is accuracy above chance. Claude Mythos Preview 0.35
- LiveBench Dropped Models answer monthly refreshed questions across math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. Scored automatically against objective ground truth. Claude Fable 5.1 85.7%