Language-model agents must adapt as users revise their requirements and priorities during complex tasks. We introduce IntentDelta, a human-constructed multi-turn benchmark with 638 trajectories and 3,766 turns across WebShop and TravelPlanner. Each turn pairs a user utterance with a cumulative intention state and human reference actions. The trajectories are cross-verified and cover feasibility- and preference-driven changes in constraints and priorities. We evaluate eleven agents on intention recovery and action quality. Average Intention Recovery is 33.1% in TravelPlanner and 44.7% in WebShop, while average Action Score is 31.6% and 41.0%, respectively. Agents struggle to preserve earlier requirements and distinguish soft preferences from must-have constraints. Correct intention recovery also does not guarantee successful execution, highlighting challenges in translating evolving user intentions into actions.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of evolving user intentions and agent evaluation. (a) User’s intention: The latent intention, hidden from the agent, evolves in response to real-world observations, including infeasibility and changes in preference. (b) Conversation: The user expresses the revised intention through subsequent utterances. In this example, the user relaxes the budget, demotes the nonstop requirement to a preference, and changes the preferred hotel location. (c) Agent evaluation: The agent is evaluated on both intention understanding and action outcomes.
Benchmark
Data scale
Multi- domain
Construction
Trade-off representation
Change conditions
Human action references
Frames El Asri et al. (2017)
1,369 dialogues
✗
Human
—
Infeasibility
✗
Flex-TravelPlanner Oh et al. (2025)
120 queries + 134 scenarios
✗
Synthetic
Hard/soft
—
NR
COMPASS Qin et al. (2025)
281 tasks
✗
LLM-generated
Hard constraints + utility
—
✗
Evolving User Intent Tack et al. (2026)
450 evaluated source tasks
✓
LLM-generated
—
—
✗
IntentDelta
638 trajectories 3,766 turns
✓
Human
Evolving priorities
Feasibility + preference
✓
Table 1: Benchmark comparison. Multi-domain denotes domain coverage; human action references denote per-turn human reference executions or plans. Dashes indicate no explicit priority/change-condition modeling; NR means not reported. Scale units are retained.
Characteristics
WebShop
TravelPlanner
Change Operations (% of events)
Add
20.4
37.3
Relax
18.0
8.3
Override
15.0
8.5
Reprioritize
46.6
46.0
Change Triggers (% of change turns)
Table 2: Intention change characteristics across WebShop and TravelPlanner. Operation percentages are calculated over change events, while trigger and compound-change percentages are calculated over turns containing intention changes.
Figure 2: Distribution of trajectory lengths across WebShop and TravelPlanner, showing the percentage of trajectories with different numbers of turns.
TravelPlanner
WebShop
Intention
Action
Intention
Action
Model
Det. ↑
Rec. ↑
Hard Succ. ↑
Action Score ↑
Det. ↑
Rec. ↑
Hard Succ. ↑
Action Score ↑
gpt-5.6-sol
70.4
38.4
52.3
49.6
92.2
50.6
58.6
49.0
gpt-5.6-luna
72.1
38.2
46.5
42.3
91.6
49.4
54.6
45.1
claude-opus-4.8
68.4
37.3
47.0
42.3
89.2
52.0
52.0
41.9
claude-sonnet-5
70.8
39.1
55.6
51.6
90.6
50.6
52.0
42.7
Table 3: Main results on TravelPlanner and WebShop. Det. and Rec. denote Detection and Intention Recovery, respectively. All values are on a 0–100 scale; higher is better. Bold indicates the highest numerical value in each column.
Figure 3: Intention recovery of carried-over constraints (not revised in the current turn) by how many turns ago they were introduced. Macro-average over 11 models; the decline holds for all 11 models in both domains.
Figure 4: Priority prediction in (a) TravelPlanner and (b) WebShop. Each row shows the distribution of predicted priorities for a gold priority, normalized to percentages. Diagonal entries indicate correct predictions.
Figure 5: Action Score for turns with fully versus incompletely recovered user intentions in TravelPlanner and WebShop. Full intention recovery is associated with higher Action Scores in both domains.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 6: WebShop annotation interface, illustrated with a ready-to-eat meal task. (a) Annotators edit user utterances, cumulative constraints, and their priorities. (b) Annotators inspect product information, available options, and supporting evidence before selecting a reference product.
Figure 7: TravelPlanner annotation interface. (a) Annotators record a location-specific update allowing up to four billed accommodation nights in Denver while retaining a two-night limit in Colorado Springs, alongside other active constraints and their priorities. (b) Annotators edit a daily reference itinerary and inspect itemized costs and the total trip cost, illustrated with a Cleveland itinerary. The two panels show different trajectories.
Violation category
Full intention recovery
Incomplete recovery
Travel Planner
Budget
79.4%
39.6%
Preferences
10.3%
39.7%
Itinerary structure
3.8%
29.5%
Activity
0.0%
1.3%
Invalid booking (min. stay / capacity)
33.1%
50.4%
Appendix
Table 4: Constraint violations and invalid bookings in action failures, conditioned on intention recovery.
Scoring scheme
TravelPlanner
WebShop
τ / Δrmax
τ / Δrmax
Linear 1:1
1.000 / 0
1.000 / 0
Linear 3:1
1.000 / 0
1.000 / 0
Linear 5:1
0.964 / 1
1.000 / 0
Lexicographic
0.964 / 1
1.000 / 0
Min. tier ratio
0.964 / 1
0.964 / 1
Appendix
Table 5: Sensitivity of model rankings to alternative soft-constraint scoring schemes. Kendall’s τ measures agreement with the original 2:1 ranking; Δrmax denotes the maximum absolute rank change across eleven models.
Domain
Precision ↑
Obsolete retention ↓
TravelPlanner
54.4
14.0
WebShop
84.5
13.8
Appendix
Table 6: Supplementary intention diagnostics (%), averaged across eleven models.
LLM agents often operate over multi-turn interactions in which user intent changes before execution. We study intent drift: the failure mode in which superseded parts of the user's intent continue to influence the final answer or tool action. We introduce IntentFlux, an executable benchmark that converts verifiable tasks into dialogues with controlled intent changes while preserving their original graders. In a 627-case calibration, mean task score falls from 0.476 to 0.384 as dialogues contain more superseded and withdrawn information. Across eight models, the rate of fully correct solutions is significantly lower when the same final task must be recovered from an evolving dialogue rather than given directly in a single turn. We further introduce StateForge, which explicitly maintains the active requirements before generation. On General-Test, it improves mean task score from 0.367 to 0.467. Providing the ground-truth final state improves performance further but still does not recover single-turn performance, indicating that state-estimation errors explain only part of the gap. These results establish intent drift as a measurable multi-turn failure mode and explicit state maintenance as a partial mitigation.
Yanjie Zhang, Bowen Cao, Zixin Chen +1
HKUST, Hong Kong SAR, China · CUHK, Hong Kong SAR, China · LIGHTSPEED, Shenzhen, China
When a large language model handles a multi-turn task and a user proposes a change but ultimately rejects it, the model should continue as if nothing changed. We find a surprising failure: merely mentioning a rejected change can derail task execution, even when the user's final intent remains unchanged. To systematically study language model behavior under evolving user intent, we introduce Intent-Eval, a controlled benchmark spanning tool actions, code, databases, and mathematics. Across diverse tasks, models are vulnerable to both rejected proposals and superseded requirements, consistent with mentioned-as-in-effect confusion: conversational content is treated as active requirements even after it has been rejected or replaced. Accuracy degradation can deepen or persist as interaction continues, highlighting the need to distinguish what has been mentioned from what remains in effect. Building on this insight, we propose Intent-OPSD, a decision-conditioned on-policy self-distillation framework with Teacher and Student initialized from the same model. The frozen Teacher provides active-intent supervision from the complete task matching the user's decision, training the Student on the full dialogue to follow active requirements reflecting user intent.
Computer-Use Agents (CUAs) leverage large language models to execute GUI operations on desktop environments, yet they generate actions without evaluating action quality, leading to irreversible errors that cascade through subsequent steps. We propose IntentScore, a plan-aware reward model that learns to score candidate actions from 398K offline GUI interaction steps spanning three operating systems. IntentScore trains with two complementary objectives: contrastive alignment for state-action relevance and margin ranking for action correctness. Architecturally, it embeds each candidate's planning intent in the action encoder, enabling discrimination between candidates with similar actions but different rationales. IntentScore achieves 97.5% pairwise discrimination accuracy on held-out evaluation. Deployed as a re-ranker for Agent S3 on OSWorld, an environment entirely unseen during training, IntentScore improves task success rate by 6.9 points, demonstrating that reward estimation learned from heterogeneous offline trajectories generalizes to unseen agents and task distributions.
Rongqian Chen, Yu Li, Zeyu Fang +3
George Washington University, Washington D.C., USA