Improving Language Models with Intentional Analysis

Giuseppe Carenini; Yuwei Yin

arxiv: 2502.04689 · v4 · submitted 2025-02-07 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.LG

Improving Language Models with Intentional Analysis

Yuwei Yin , Giuseppe Carenini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 03:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

keywords intentional analysislanguage modelschain-of-thoughtprompting techniquesreasoningintent understandingmodel improvement

0 comments

The pith

Explicitly analyzing the intent behind a question improves language model performance on reasoning tasks.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes Intentional Analysis as a prompting technique that requires language models to first identify and reason about the underlying intent of a query before attempting to solve it. Experiments across many benchmarks show this step raises accuracy for both open-source and proprietary models, including the strongest current systems. The method beats standard Chain-of-Thought prompting and can be combined with it for further gains. The reported benefits come from reducing errors such as misreading what the question is really asking or leaping to conclusions without enough thought. A reader would care because intent is a basic part of how humans solve problems yet has been missing from most model prompting approaches.

Core claim

Intentional Analysis (IA) explicitly invokes intent-aware analysis and reasoning during the problem-solving process. Comprehensive experiments across diverse benchmarks, model types, and configurations demonstrate that 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. The benefits stem from addressing several weaknesses in baseline methods, such as intent misunderstanding, hasty generalization, and mental laziness.

What carries the argument

Intentional Analysis (IA), an explicit step added to prompting that forces the model to perform intent-aware analysis and reasoning before producing an answer.

If this is right

IA raises accuracy on diverse benchmarks for both open and closed models including the strongest current systems.
IA outperforms Chain-of-Thought prompting across multiple experimental settings.
IA combines with Chain-of-Thought to produce additional gains beyond either method alone.
IA reduces specific failure modes such as intent misunderstanding, hasty generalization, and mental laziness.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Training models to perform intent analysis internally during pretraining or fine-tuning could reduce reliance on long inference-time prompts.
The same intent-first step might improve performance in non-reasoning tasks such as open-ended dialogue or summarization where goal clarity matters.
Testing whether the gains hold when the intent step is generated by a smaller model before being fed to the main model would clarify the computational cost.

Load-bearing premise

The performance gains are caused by the explicit intent-aware analysis step rather than by other unspecified changes in prompting format, length, or model behavior.

What would settle it

An ablation experiment that keeps prompt length and structure identical but removes the intent-analysis sentence, then checks whether the accuracy advantage over baseline prompting disappears.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04689 by Giuseppe Carenini, Yuwei Yin.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: ARR motivation. To answer a question, we often need to analyze the question’s intent, retrieve relevant information, and reason step by step. demand extensive commonsense, world knowledge, and complex reasoning (Srivastava et al., 2023; Suzgun et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2024b), posing significant challenges for LLMs. Optimizing LLM performance in QA tasks is increasingly crucial for their continued develop… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Question answering with LLMs. We first obtain rationale ri by reasoning generation and then select the optimal option via evaluating the language modeling losses of different context-option combinations. consistency (Wang et al., 2023c; Chen et al., 2023) or tree-like searches (Yao et al., 2023), while others investigate self-refinement (Madaan et al., 2023), self-correction (Huang et al., 2024; Tyen et al… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Experiments on prompt variants. The average performance (Accuracy %) of the LLaMA3-8BChat model on 10 QA datasets using different ARR prompt variants (“V1”–“V5”). 5.3 Prompt Variants To demonstrate that ARR works effectively irrespective of specific prompt design, we conduct experiments on different ARR prompt variants. The original ARR prompt (as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

read the original 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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

IA adds an intent step to prompting and reports gains over CoT, but the experiments leave open whether intent is the active ingredient or just added structure.

read the letter

The paper's central move is to insert an explicit intent-analysis step before the usual reasoning trace. The authors argue this addresses a gap in how current LMs handle questions and show consistent lifts across benchmarks, including on GPT-5 and Claude-Opus-4.6. They also report that IA beats CoT in several settings and can be combined with it. The qualitative cases illustrate concrete failure modes (intent misreading, hasty conclusions) that the added step appears to mitigate. That part of the story is straightforward and worth noting for anyone working on reasoning prompts. The experiments span multiple model types and tasks, which gives the results some breadth. The main weakness is that the design does not isolate the intent component. No ablations are described that hold prompt length, number of reasoning sentences, or overall format constant while removing only the intent-specific content. Without those controls it remains possible that any added structured paragraph would produce similar effects through extra compute or different model behavior. The stress-test concern therefore lands on the evidence as presented. The work is aimed at researchers who build or evaluate prompting methods for reasoning tasks. It has enough empirical scope and a clear practical suggestion to justify sending it to referees rather than desk-rejecting it, though any review would likely ask for length-matched controls and more detail on the proprietary-model runs. I would bring it to a reading group for the prompting discussion but would not cite it in my own work unless the causal claim is tightened.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Intentional Analysis (IA), a prompting method that explicitly performs intent-aware analysis before reasoning. It claims IA improves performance over baselines and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) across benchmarks and model scales (including SOTA proprietary models), can synergize with CoT, and mitigates issues like intent misunderstanding via qualitative case studies.

Significance. If validated with proper controls, the work could usefully highlight the role of explicit intent modeling in LM reasoning and provide a simple, generalizable prompting technique. The reported synergy with CoT and results on large proprietary models would be notable if the causal mechanism is isolated.

major comments (2)

[§4] §4 (Experimental Setup and Results): the IA vs. CoT and baseline comparisons do not report ablations that hold total prompt length, number of reasoning sentences, and overall format fixed while removing only the intent-specific content. Without such controls, the central claim that gains stem specifically from intent-aware analysis (rather than added structure or length) cannot be isolated, directly undermining attribution in the abstract and §5.
[Table 2] Table 2 and §4.3: no error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on number of runs are provided for the reported improvements on GPT-5 and Claude-Opus-4.6; given the low soundness noted in the reader report, this makes it impossible to assess whether the claimed consistent gains are robust.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The model names GPT-5 and Claude-Opus-4.6 in the abstract and §4 appear non-standard; clarify their exact versions or release status.
[§5] §5 case studies are qualitative only; adding quantitative metrics on how often intent misunderstanding occurs in baselines vs. IA would strengthen the mechanistic claims.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The points raised concern experimental controls and statistical reporting, both of which we address below with commitments to revision.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4] §4 (Experimental Setup and Results): the IA vs. CoT and baseline comparisons do not report ablations that hold total prompt length, number of reasoning sentences, and overall format fixed while removing only the intent-specific content. Without such controls, the central claim that gains stem specifically from intent-aware analysis (rather than added structure or length) cannot be isolated, directly undermining attribution in the abstract and §5.

Authors: We agree that the current comparisons do not fully isolate the contribution of intent-specific content from added length or structure. While the experiments follow standard prompting evaluation practices, we will add targeted ablations in the revised manuscript that hold total prompt length, number of reasoning sentences, and overall format constant while removing only the intent-aware analysis components. These results will be reported to strengthen causal attribution. revision: yes
Referee: [Table 2] Table 2 and §4.3: no error bars, statistical significance tests, or details on number of runs are provided for the reported improvements on GPT-5 and Claude-Opus-4.6; given the low soundness noted in the reader report, this makes it impossible to assess whether the claimed consistent gains are robust.

Authors: We acknowledge the value of statistical details for assessing robustness. Evaluations on the proprietary models were performed once per setting owing to API costs. In revision we will report the exact number of evaluations conducted, include any available consistency information across benchmarks, and add a limitations discussion. Additional runs will be performed where feasible to supply error estimates. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical prompting study with independent experimental validation

full rationale

The paper introduces Intentional Analysis (IA) as an explicit prompting step for intent-aware reasoning and supports its effectiveness solely through benchmark experiments, comparisons to CoT, and qualitative case studies across models including proprietary ones. No equations, fitted parameters, self-referential derivations, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the provided text. The central claims rest on measured performance differences rather than any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. The absence of a mathematical derivation chain makes circularity patterns inapplicable; the evaluation is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no technical details on free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are provided.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5746 in / 1047 out tokens · 53584 ms · 2026-05-23T03:41:59.641531+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

13 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual, volume 33, pages 1877–1901, Virtual Event. NeurIPS. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Katherin...

work page 2020
[2]

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3)

A survey on evaluation of large language mod- els. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3). Danqi Chen. 2018. Neural Reading Comprehension and Beyond. Stanford University. Xinyun Chen, Renat Aksitov, Uri Alon, Jie Ren, Kefan Xiao, Pengcheng Yin, Sushant Prakash, Charles Sut- ton, Xuezhi Wang, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Universal self-cons...

work page arXiv 2018
[3]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models

A survey on in-context learning. In Proceed- ings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1107–1128, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[4]

rStar-Math: Small LLMs Can Master Math Reasoning with Self-Evolved Deep Thinking

rstar-math: Small llms can master math reason- ing with self-evolved deep thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04519. Brett K Hayes and Evan Heit. 2018. Inductive reason- ing 2.0. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 9(3):e1459. Evan Heit. 2000. Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7:569–592. Dan Hendrycks, Colli...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018
[5]

DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

Let’s verify step by step. In The Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations. Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437. Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[6]

Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 28 - December 9, 2022. Guilherme Penedo, Hynek Kydlíˇcek, Anton Lozhkov, Margaret Mitchell, Colin Raffel, Leandro V o...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[7]

In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9090– 9101, Bangkok, Thailand

Revisiting demonstration selection strategies in in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9090– 9101, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang...

work page 2019
[8]

In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems

Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems. Joshua Robinson and David Wingate. 2023. Leveraging large language models for multiple choice question answering. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. Ohad Rubin, Jonathan...

work page 2023
[9]

Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, pages 2655–2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mo...

work page 2022
[10]

A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications

A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927. Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social iqa: Common- sense reasoning about social interactions. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proce...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[11]

Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning

Rewarding progress: Scaling automated pro- cess verifiers for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08146. Claude Elwood Shannon. 1948. A mathematical the- ory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3):379–423. Claude Elwood Shannon. 1951. Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell System Technical Journal, 30(1):50–64. Zhihong Sh...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1948
[12]

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023. Michihiro Yasunaga, Xinyun Chen, Yujia Li, Panupong Pasupat, Jure Leskovec, Percy Liang, Ed H. Chi, ...

work page 2023
[13]

Answer: Let’s identify the question’s intent, gather the necessary information, and then work through a logical, step-by-step solution

Swi: Speaking with intent in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21544. Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Be- rant. 2024. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Y...

work page arXiv 2024

[1] [1]

Language models are few-shot learners. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Process- ing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual, volume 33, pages 1877–1901, Virtual Event. NeurIPS. Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramer, Eric Wallace, Matthew Jagielski, Ariel Herbert-V oss, Katherin...

work page 2020

[2] [2]

ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3)

A survey on evaluation of large language mod- els. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology, 15(3). Danqi Chen. 2018. Neural Reading Comprehension and Beyond. Stanford University. Xinyun Chen, Renat Aksitov, Uri Alon, Jie Ren, Kefan Xiao, Pengcheng Yin, Sushant Prakash, Charles Sut- ton, Xuezhi Wang, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Universal self-cons...

work page arXiv 2018

[3] [3]

The Llama 3 Herd of Models

A survey on in-context learning. In Proceed- ings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1107–1128, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[4] [4]

rStar-Math: Small LLMs Can Master Math Reasoning with Self-Evolved Deep Thinking

rstar-math: Small llms can master math reason- ing with self-evolved deep thinking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04519. Brett K Hayes and Evan Heit. 2018. Inductive reason- ing 2.0. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 9(3):e1459. Evan Heit. 2000. Properties of inductive reasoning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 7:569–592. Dan Hendrycks, Colli...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

[5] [5]

DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report

Let’s verify step by step. In The Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations. Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. 2024. Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437. Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[6] [6]

Training language models to follow instruc- tions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35: Annual Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems 2022, NeurIPS 2022, New Orleans, LA, USA, November 28 - December 9, 2022. Guilherme Penedo, Hynek Kydlíˇcek, Anton Lozhkov, Margaret Mitchell, Colin Raffel, Leandro V o...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[7] [7]

In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9090– 9101, Bangkok, Thailand

Revisiting demonstration selection strategies in in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9090– 9101, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, Patrick Lewis, Anton Bakhtin, Yuxiang...

work page 2019

[8] [8]

In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems

Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Sys- tems. Joshua Robinson and David Wingate. 2023. Leveraging large language models for multiple choice question answering. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. Ohad Rubin, Jonathan...

work page 2023

[9] [9]

Learning to retrieve prompts for in-context learning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, pages 2655–2671, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. Pranab Sahoo, Ayush Kumar Singh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, Samrat Mo...

work page 2022

[10] [10]

A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering in Large Language Models: Techniques and Applications

A systematic survey of prompt engineering in large language models: Techniques and applications. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07927. Maarten Sap, Hannah Rashkin, Derek Chen, Ronan Le Bras, and Yejin Choi. 2019. Social iqa: Common- sense reasoning about social interactions. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proce...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[11] [11]

Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning

Rewarding progress: Scaling automated pro- cess verifiers for llm reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08146. Claude Elwood Shannon. 1948. A mathematical the- ory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3):379–423. Claude Elwood Shannon. 1951. Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell System Technical Journal, 30(1):50–64. Zhihong Sh...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1948

[12] [12]

Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - 16, 2023. Michihiro Yasunaga, Xinyun Chen, Yujia Li, Panupong Pasupat, Jure Leskovec, Percy Liang, Ed H. Chi, ...

work page 2023

[13] [13]

Answer: Let’s identify the question’s intent, gather the necessary information, and then work through a logical, step-by-step solution

Swi: Speaking with intent in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21544. Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Be- rant. 2024. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Y...

work page arXiv 2024