Does Structured Intent Representation Generalize? A Cross-Language, Cross-Model Empirical Study of 5W3H Prompting

Peng Gang · Mar 26, 2026 · 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

Does structured intent representation generalize across languages and models? We study PPS (Prompt Protocol Specification), a 5W3H-based framework for structured intent representation in human-AI interaction, and extend prior Chinese-only evidence along three dimensions: two additional languages (English and Japanese), a fourth condition in which a user's simple prompt is automatically expanded into a full 5W3H specification by an AI-assisted authoring interface, and a new research question on cross-model output consistency. Across 2,160 model outputs (3 languages x 4 conditions x 3 LLMs x 60 tasks), we find that AI-expanded 5W3H prompts (Condition D) show no statistically significant difference in goal alignment from manually crafted 5W3H prompts (Condition C) across all three languages, while requiring only a single-sentence input from the user. Structured PPS conditions often reduce or reshape cross-model output variance, though this effect is not uniform across languages and metrics; the strongest evidence comes from identifying spurious low variance in unconstrained baselines. We also show that unstructured prompts exhibit a systematic dual-inflation bias: artificially high composite scores and artificially low apparent cross-model variance. These findings suggest that structured 5W3H representations can improve intent alignment and accessibility across languages and models, especially when AI-assisted authoring lowers the barrier for non-expert users.

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.