Dimension-Level Intent Fidelity Evaluation for Large Language Models: Evidence from Structured Prompt Ablation

People judge interactions with large language models (LLMs) as successful when outputs match what they want, not what they type. Yet LLMs are trained to predict the next token solely from text input, not underlying intent. Because written language is an imperfect proxy for intent, and correlations between phrasing and desired outcomes can break down in training data, models that rely too heavily on surface cues may respond inconsistently to semantically equivalent prompts. This makes it essential to evaluate whether LLMs can reliably infer user intent-especially in high-stakes settings where robustness and generalization are critical. We introduce a formal framework for assessing intent comprehension in LLMs: whether a model demonstrates robust understanding of user intent by producing consistent outputs across semantically equivalent prompts while differentiating between prompts with distinct intents. Our evaluation approach is based on a variance decomposition of model responses into three components: variability due to user intent, user articulation, and model uncertainty. Models that understand what users want, and are not overly sensitive to textual cues, should attribute most output variance to intent differences, rather than articulation style. Applying this framework across diverse domains, we find that, within the five LLaMA and Gemma models we evaluate, larger models typically assign a greater share of variance to intent, indicating stronger comprehension of intent, although gains are uneven and often modest with increasing model size. These results motivate moving beyond accuracy-only benchmarks toward semantic diagnostics that directly assess whether models understand what users intend.

Accurately understanding the intent behind speech, conversation, and writing is crucial to the development of helpful Large Language Model (LLM) assistants. This paper introduces IntentGrasp, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating the intent understanding capability of LLMs. Derived from 49 high-quality, open-licensed corpora spanning 12 diverse domains, IntentGrasp is constructed through source datasets curation, intent label contextualization, and task format unification. IntentGrasp contains a large-scale training set of 262,759 instances and two evaluation sets: an All Set of 12,909 test cases and a more balanced and challenging Gem Set of 470 cases. Extensive evaluations on 20 LLMs across 7 families (including frontier models such as GPT-5.4, Gemini-3.1-Pro, and Claude-Opus-4.7) demonstrate unsatisfactory performance, with scores below 60% on All Set and below 25% on Gem set. Notably, 17 out of 20 tested models perform worse than a random-guess baseline (15.2%) on Gem Set, while the estimated human performance is ~81.1%, showing substantial room for improvement. To enhance such ability, this paper proposes Intentional Fine-Tuning (IFT), which fine-tunes the models on the training set in IntentGrasp, yielding significant gains of 30+ F1 points on All Set and 20+ points on Gem Set. Tellingly, the leave-one-domain-out (Lodo) experiments further demonstrate the strong cross-domain generalizability of IFT, verifying that it is a promising approach to substantially enhancing the intent understanding of LLMs. Overall, by benchmarking and boosting intent understanding ability, this study sheds light on a promising path towards more intentional, capable, and safe AI assistants for human benefits and social good.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for open-ended tasks, but underspecified prompts can lead to low-quality answers and additional interaction. This paper studies whether structured prompt design improves response quality while reducing user effort. We compare three prompt conditions: a raw prompt, a checklist-improved prompt, and a clarifying-question prompt. We evaluate these conditions across four task types--summarization, planning, explanation, and coding--using three LLM systems: ChatGPT, Claude, and Grok. Each output is scored with a unified rubric covering task completion, correctness, compliance, and clarity. Checklist-improved prompts achieved the highest mean rubric score, 7.50 out of 8, compared with 5.67 for raw prompts and 6.67 for clarifying-question prompts. Checklist prompts also produced the best quality-effort tradeoff, using fewer average tokens than both raw and clarifying prompts. These results suggest that a simple prompt checklist can improve LLM responses while reducing unnecessary interaction.