A User-Centric Multi-Intent Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are essential tools that users employ across various scenarios, so evaluating their performance and guiding users in selecting the suitable service is important. Although many benchmarks exist, they mainly focus on specific predefined model abilities, such as world knowledge, reasoning, etc. Based on these ability scores, it is hard for users to determine which LLM best suits their particular needs. To address these issues, we propose to evaluate LLMs from a user-centric perspective and design this benchmark to measure their efficacy in satisfying user needs under distinct intents. Firstly, we collect 1,846 real-world use cases from a user study with 712 participants from 23 countries. This first-hand data helps us understand actual user intents and needs in LLM interactions, forming the User Reported Scenarios (URS) dataset, which is categorized with six types of user intents. Secondly, based on this authentic dataset, we benchmark 10 LLM services with GPT-4-as-Judge. Thirdly, we show that benchmark scores align well with human preference in both real-world experience and pair-wise annotations, achieving Pearson correlations of 0.95 and 0.94, respectively. This alignment confirms that the URS dataset and our evaluation method establish an effective user-centric benchmark. The dataset, code, and process data are publicly available at https://github.com/Alice1998/URS.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".