Improving Language Models with Intentional Analysis

Yuwei Yin, Giuseppe Carenini · Feb 7, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Intent, a critical cognitive notion and mental state, is ubiquitous in human communication and problem-solving. Accurately understanding the underlying intent behind questions is imperative to reasoning towards correct answers. However, this significant concept has been largely disregarded in the rapid development of language models (LMs). To unleash the potential of intent and instill it into LMs, this paper introduces Intentional Analysis (IA), which explicitly invokes intent-aware analysis and reasoning during the problem-solving process. Comprehensive experiments across diverse benchmarks, model types, and configurations demonstrate the effectiveness, robustness, and generalizability of IA. Notably, IA consistently improves task performance even on SOTA proprietary models like GPT-5 and Claude-Opus-4.6. Moreover, IA not only outperforms Chain-of-Thought (CoT) across various experimental settings, but it can also synergistically work with CoT reasoning. Further qualitative analysis and case studies reveal that the benefits of IA stem from addressing several weaknesses in baseline methods, such as intent misunderstanding, hasty generalization, and mental laziness. Case studies also provide insights into the mechanisms underlying IA and clarify how it differs from CoT in mitigating these weaknesses. This study sheds light on a promising direction for the development of future LLMs with intentional analysis.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.