Intent classification in Large Language Models (LLMs) involves categorizing user prompts into predefined classes. For instance, given a user prompt, the system must determine whether it primarily concerns mathematics, coding, or general text processing. Such classification enables routing prompts to specialized models optimized for specific domains, improving both accuracy and computational efficiency. In this work, we conduct a systematic study comparing training-free vs training-based approaches for intent classification. For this purpose, we consider two lightweight, training-free methods based on statistics of internal representations and compare them against MLP classifiers and linear probes. Our comprehensive empirical evaluation reveals that 1) Both training-free and training-based methods saturate easy benchmarks (mathematics vs. coding vs. natural language), 2) Training-based classifiers have an advantage on harder classification tasks (e.g. Java vs Python), and 3) Training-free methods are generally more robust to mixed-intent and adversarial prompts.
We argue that safety classifiers should model user intent as an explicit signal between the prompt and the final label. To study this, we introduce AIMS, a human-annotated dataset of 1,724 difficult safety prompts, each paired with an intent description and harm label. We use AIMS to evaluate intent-aware training across supervised fine-tuning, preference learning, reasoning distillation, and reinforcement learning. Despite its size, AIMS enables competitive safety classifiers across training regimes: DPO from model-generated intent errors improves over SFT, and intent-conditioned distillation outperforms reasoning-only distillation in most teacher-student pairs. Most notably, directly rewarding intent faithfulness with GRPO yields the strongest average performance across five external safety benchmarks, while our intent-aware models form the inference latency-F1 Pareto frontier. These results show that faithful intent modeling is a compact, high-quality supervision signal for more robust safety classifiers.
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.
Using prompted language models as classifiers enables classification in domains with limited training data, but misses some of the robustness and performance benefits that fine-tuning can bring. We study whether training on multiple classification tasks, each with its own prompt, improves performance on new domains with new classification prompts. We show that such training partially generalizes to adjacent domains, improving classification performance on tasks that are unseen during training. However, we identify specific edge cases where the fine-tuned models fail to follow prompts, such as when the classification prompt changes completely while the data domain remains the same as during training. We show that classification training can be mixed with general instruction following training, and that (when done well) such training keeps the benefits of classification training and mitigates its generalization failures. Surprisingly, we see that this no-thinking supervised classification training can generalize to with-thinking classification and summarization, suggesting that no-thinking classification training might be instrumentally useful in building other kinds of classifiers and monitoring systems.