Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".