COINBench: Moving Beyond Individual Perspectives to Collective Intent Understanding
Organizations: Tongji University · CurrentsAI Research · Stanford University
Abstract
Understanding human intent is a high-level cognitive challenge for Large Language Models (LLMs), requiring sophisticated reasoning over noisy, conflicting, and non-linear discourse. While LLMs excel at following individual instructions, their ability to distill Collective Intent - the process of extracting consensus, resolving contradictions, and inferring latent trends from multi-source public discussions - remains largely unexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce COIN-BENCH, a dynamic, real-world, live-updating benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs on collective intent understanding within the consumer domain. Unlike traditional benchmarks that focus on transactional outcomes, COIN-BENCH operationalizes intent as a hierarchical cognitive structure, ranging from explicit scenarios to deep causal reasoning. We implement a robust evaluation pipeline that combines a rule-based method with an LLM-as-the-Judge approach. This framework incorporates COIN-TREE for hierarchical cognitive structuring and retrieval-augmented verification (COIN-RAG) to ensure expert-level precision in analyzing raw, collective human discussions. An extensive evaluation of 20 state-of-the-art LLMs across four dimensions - depth, breadth, informativeness, and correctness - reveals that while current models can handle surface-level aggregation, they still struggle with the analytical depth required for complex intent synthesis. COIN-BENCH establishes a new standard for advancing LLMs from passive instruction followers to expert-level analytical agents capable of deciphering the collective voice of the real world. See our project page on COIN-BENCH.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | Domain | Tasks | Real World | Live Update |
| DABstep Egg et al. (2025) | Data Science | 450 | ✓ | ✗ |
| FutureX Zeng et al. (2025) | Future Prediction | 500/week | ✓ | ✓ |
| GAIA Mialon et al. (2023) | General QA | 466 | ✓ | ✗ |
| OSWorld Xie et al. (2024) | Computer Use | 369 | ✓ | ✗ |
| OPT-Bench Li et al. (2025a) | Iterative Optimization | 30 | ✓ | ✗ |
| Spider2.0 Lei et al. (2024) | Text-to-SQL | 632 | ✓ | ✗ |
| Model | Depth | Breadth | Informativeness | Correctness | ||||||
| L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | Overall | Lexical | Semantic | |||
| Proprietary LLMs | ||||||||||
| GPT-5.2 | 23.25 | 25.51 | 6.11 | 3.16 | 0 | 11.61 | 53.62 | 76.79 | 65.66 | 85.66 |
| Gemini3-Flash | 23.81 | 24.90 | 5.81 | 3.16 | 0.05 | 11.54 | 53.51 | 77.65 | 56.62 | 90.06 |
| GPT-5 | 18.29 | 25.81 | 6.25 | 3.49 | 0.06 | 10.78 | 53.48 | 80.21 | 62.75 | 62.65 |
| GPT-4.1 | 20.97 | 25.03 | 5.90 | 3.37 | 0 | 11.01 | 53.41 | 79.07 | 63.82 | 59.05 |
| Model | Depth | Breadth | Informativeness | Correctness | ||||||
| L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | Overall | Lexical | Semantic | |||
| GPT-5.2 (wo/Tree) | 23.25 | 25.51 | 6.11 | 3.16 | 0 | 11.61 | 53.62 | 76.79 | 65.66 | 85.66 |
| GPT-5.2 (w/Tree) | 44.71 | 34.11 | 13.94 | 10.51 | 0.46 | 20.75 | 58.37 | 68.71 | 73.71 | 56.35 |
| ( +21.46 ) | ( +8.60 ) | ( +7.83 ) | ( +7.35 ) | ( +0.46 ) | ( +9.14 ) | ( +4.75 ) | ( -8.08 ) | ( -8.05 ) | ( -29.31 ) | |
| Gemini3-Flash (wo/Tree) | 23.81 | 24.90 | 5.81 | 3.16 | 0.05 | 11.54 | 53.51 | 77.65 | 56.62 | 90.06 |
| Gemini3-Flash (w/Tree) | 41.32 | 33.97 | 15.24 | 11.74 | 1.95 | 20.84 | 58.63 | 68.39 | 68.55 | 71.65 |
| Source | Depth | Breadth | Informativeness | Correctness | ||||||
| L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | Overall | Lexical | Semantic | |||
| GPT-5.2 | 23.76 | 30.66 | 7.67 | 4.13 | 0 | 13.24 | 55.32 | 79.47 | 63.33 | 86.67 |
| Expert | 46.42 | 37.95 | 15.80 | 12.27 | 1.77 | 22.84 | 60.13 | 73.07 | 67.65 | 88.17 |
| ( +22.66 ) | ( +7.29 ) | ( +8.13 ) | ( +8.14 ) | ( +1.77 ) | ( +9.60 ) | ( +4.81 ) | ( -6.40 ) | ( -4.32 ) | ( +1.50 ) | |
| GPT-DeepResearch | 18.25 | 26.79 | 7.23 | 4.63 | 0 | 11.37 | 54.56 | 79.88 | 58.55 | 71.60 |
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Model | Depth | Breadth | Informativeness | Correctness | ||||||
| L1 | L2 | L3 | L4 | L5 | Overall | Lexical | Semantic | |||
| GPT-5 | 3.33 | 21.79 | 6.53 | 4.19 | 0.00 | 7.17 | 50.84 | 0.87 | 0.30 | 0.75 |
| GPT-o3 | 2.51 | 20.02 | 5.33 | 2.77 | 1.91 | 6.51 | 50.19 | 0.75 | 0.46 | 0.95 |
| Qwen3-30B-A3B | 31.32 | 16.61 | 2.77 | 1.49 | 0.00 | 10.44 | 50.51 | 0.81 | 0.39 | 0.75 |
LLM Evaluation
Large language model evaluation measures what models can do, how reliably they do it, and whether benchmark scores predict real-world performance.
See all 2,408 papers