ConsintBench: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Consumer Intent Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.13499v2
• Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 04:04:04 GMT
• Title: ConsintBench: Evaluating Language Models on Real-World Consumer Intent Understanding
• Abstract summary: bench is the first dynamic, live evaluation benchmark specifically designed for intent understanding, particularly in the consumer domain.<n>bench is the largest and most diverse benchmark of its kind, supporting real-time updates while preventing data contamination through an automated curation pipeline.
• Score: 4.5799194788369455
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Understanding human intent is a complex, high-level task for large language models (LLMs), requiring analytical reasoning, contextual interpretation, dynamic information aggregation, and decision-making under uncertainty. Real-world public discussions, such as consumer product discussions, are rarely linear or involve a single user. Instead, they are characterized by interwoven and often conflicting perspectives, divergent concerns, goals, emotional tendencies, as well as implicit assumptions and background knowledge about usage scenarios. To accurately understand such explicit public intent, an LLM must go beyond parsing individual sentences; it must integrate multi-source signals, reason over inconsistencies, and adapt to evolving discourse, similar to how experts in fields like politics, economics, or finance approach complex, uncertain environments. Despite the importance of this capability, no large-scale benchmark currently exists for evaluating LLMs on real-world human intent understanding, primarily due to the challenges of collecting real-world public discussion data and constructing a robust evaluation pipeline. To bridge this gap, we introduce \bench, the first dynamic, live evaluation benchmark specifically designed for intent understanding, particularly in the consumer domain. \bench is the largest and most diverse benchmark of its kind, supporting real-time updates while preventing data contamination through an automated curation pipeline.

Related papers

• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• Beyond Static Dialogues: Benchmarking Realistic, Heterogeneous, and Evolving Long-Term Memory [54.947805187562274]
  We introduce realistic dialogues across diverse interaction scenarios that exhibit dynamic temporal evolution and long-term coherence.<n>The resulting benchmark encompasses challenging question-answer pairs spanning seven inquiry types.<n>We identify at least one of 27 critical memory characteristics that we identify as essential yet underexplored in current research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-29T09:51:22Z)
• COINBench: Moving Beyond Individual Perspectives to Collective Intent Understanding [4.5799194788369455]
  COIN-BENCH is a live-updating benchmark to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) on collective intent understanding.<n>Unlike traditional benchmarks that focus on transactional outcomes, COIN-BENCH operationalizes intent as a hierarchical cognitive structure.<n>This framework incorporates COIN-TREE for hierarchical cognitive structuring and retrieval-augmented verification (COIN-RAG) to ensure expert-level precision in analyzing raw, collective human discussions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-22T17:12:14Z)
• Multimodal Fact-Level Attribution for Verifiable Reasoning [80.60864342985748]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used for real-world tasks involving multi-step reasoning and long-form generation.<n>Existing multimodal grounding benchmarks and evaluation methods fail to assess attribution in complex multimodal reasoning.<n>We introduce MuRGAt, a benchmark for evaluating fact-level multimodal attribution in settings that require reasoning beyond direct observation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T03:10:02Z)
• Multi-Turn Puzzles: Evaluating Interactive Reasoning and Strategic Dialogue in LLMs [21.192619293355502]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at solving problems with clear and complete statements, but often struggle with nuanced environments.<n>This benchmark provides valuable insights into the strengths and weaknesses of current LLMs in handling complex, interactive scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T19:14:45Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• NeedleBench: Evaluating LLM Retrieval and Reasoning Across Varying Information Densities [51.07379913779232]
  NeedleBench is a framework for assessing retrieval and reasoning performance in long-context tasks.<n>It embeds key data points at varying depths to rigorously test model capabilities.<n>Our experiments reveal that reasoning models like Deep-R1 and OpenAI's o3 struggle with continuous retrieval and reasoning in information-dense scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T17:59:06Z)
• The Impossibility of Fair LLMs [17.812295963158714]
  We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair language model intractable.<n>We show that each framework either does not extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice.<n>These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-28T04:36:15Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities.<n>If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information.<n>To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• Intrinsic User-Centric Interpretability through Global Mixture of Experts [31.738009841932374]
  InterpretCC is a family of intrinsically interpretable neural networks that optimize for ease of human understanding and explanation faithfulness.<n>We show that InterpretCC explanations are found to have higher actionability and usefulness over other intrinsically interpretable approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T11:55:50Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Stateful Offline Contextual Policy Evaluation and Learning [88.9134799076718]
  We study off-policy evaluation and learning from sequential data. We formalize the relevant causal structure of problems such as dynamic personalized pricing. We show improved out-of-sample policy performance in this class of relevant problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-19T16:15:56Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.