pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25058 · v1 · pith:JDYCQFFDnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Intent Signal Theory: A Computational Framework for Intent-State Control in Human-AI Interaction

Gang Peng This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 23:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords Intent Signal Theoryhuman-AI interactionprompt engineeringintent losslatent intentcomputational frameworkAI alignment
0
0 comments X

The pith

Intent Signal Theory separates latent user intent from the prompt and proves private intent cannot be recovered if absent from the carrier.

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

The paper presents Intent Signal Theory as a way to model the gap between what a user truly wants and what they actually send as input to an AI. It treats the hidden goal, the visible signal of that goal, the prompt itself, and the AI's response as four separate objects that current systems mix together. A central theorem states that any private part of the intent not encoded in the prompt is lost for good and can only be replaced with a generic stand-in. Companion experiments across different models, languages, and tasks produce patterns of structural versus fidelity loss that match the theory's predictions. If the separation holds, prompt work shifts from surface tweaks to designing protocols that better capture and protect the original intent state.

Core claim

Intent Signal Theory formalizes four routinely conflated objects in human-AI exchange: latent source intent (I*), observable intent proxy (I-hat), encoded carrier or prompt (P), and model output (O). It introduces dimensional weights, encoding masks, structural and fidelity recovery scores, and a public-private decomposition. The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss states that private intent missing from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution. Four studies with six LLMs, three languages, and three domains produce structural-fidelity splits, metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus that align with these distinctions.

What carries the argument

The four-way distinction among latent source intent, observable intent proxy, encoded carrier, and model output, together with the Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss that governs recovery limits.

If this is right

  • Prompt engineering must be reframed as intent-protocol design to reduce irreversible loss.
  • AI systems require an explicit computational layer for tracking and controlling intent states across turns.
  • Structural and fidelity recovery scores become measurable targets for improving interaction quality.
  • Public-private decomposition allows separate handling of shareable versus sensitive intent components.
  • Weight-tolerance plateaus set practical bounds on how much intent can be preserved under varying prompt conditions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Interfaces could be built to elicit stronger intent proxies before any prompt is formed.
  • Multi-turn systems might maintain an explicit intent-state log to limit cumulative loss.
  • Training data could be augmented with explicit intent labels to reduce reliance on generic recovery.
  • The framework suggests new evaluation benchmarks focused on intent fidelity rather than output fluency alone.

Load-bearing premise

The four layers of intent can be cleanly separated from one another as distinct, computationally formalizable objects whose relationships are directly testable.

What would settle it

An experiment in which an AI system recovers the exact private intent that was never present in the prompt, beyond any generic substitution, would falsify the theorem.

read the original abstract

Current AI interaction models treat the prompt as the primary object of exchange, omitting a critical layer: the user's latent source intent, the goal state preceding and motivating the prompt. Here we introduce Intent Signal Theory (IST), a computational framework that formalises this missing intent layer. IST distinguishes four objects routinely conflated: latent source intent (I*), observable intent proxy (I-hat), encoded carrier (P), and model output (O). It formalises dimensional weights, encoding masks, structural and fidelity recovery scores, and public-private intent decomposition. The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss establishes that private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution. Evidence from four companion studies spanning six LLMs, three languages and three task domains shows structural-fidelity splits, human-validated metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus consistent with IST's predictions. IST reframes prompt engineering as intent-protocol design and identifies a computational layer that current AI systems lack.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Intent Signal Theory (IST) as a computational framework distinguishing four objects in human-AI interaction: latent source intent (I*), observable intent proxy (I-hat), encoded carrier (P), and model output (O). It formalizes dimensional weights, encoding masks, structural and fidelity recovery scores, and public-private intent decomposition. The central Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss states that private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution. Four companion studies across six LLMs, three languages, and three task domains are reported as showing structural-fidelity splits, human-validated metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus consistent with the theory's predictions, reframing prompt engineering as intent-protocol design.

Significance. If the four-object distinction and theorem can be shown to be non-circular and independently testable, IST could provide a useful formal layer for analyzing intent recovery failures in current AI systems. The multi-model, multi-language, multi-domain study design is a strength for assessing generalizability if the protocols are fully specified. The theorem offers a potentially falsifiable claim that could guide future work on intent-state control.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss is asserted to follow from the four-object distinction and the axiom that private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution, but no derivation, formal definitions of the objects, or proof steps are referenced; this is load-bearing for the central claim and must be supplied with explicit equations or logical steps.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: The four studies are summarized only at the level of 'showing structural-fidelity splits, human-validated metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus consistent with IST's predictions,' with no mention of data tables, statistical tests, exclusion rules, error analysis, or how the metrics were derived independently of the fitted parameters; without these the support for the theorem cannot be evaluated and the risk of circularity remains unaddressed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The specific LLMs, languages, and task domains are not named, which would improve reproducibility even at the abstract level.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed review and for identifying areas where the abstract could better convey the formal content and empirical support. We address each major comment below. The full manuscript already contains the requested formal elements and study details in the body and appendices; our revisions will ensure the abstract references them explicitly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss is asserted to follow from the four-object distinction and the axiom that private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution, but no derivation, formal definitions of the objects, or proof steps are referenced; this is load-bearing for the central claim and must be supplied with explicit equations or logical steps.

    Authors: The manuscript supplies formal definitions of I*, Î, P, and O together with the public-private decomposition in Section 3.1 (Equations 1-4), dimensional weights and masks in 3.2, and the structural/fidelity scores in 3.3. The Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss is derived in Section 4 from the stated axiom via four explicit logical steps: (i) private intent not present in P cannot enter the encoding mask, (ii) recovery is therefore limited to the public component, (iii) any substitution for the missing private component is necessarily generic, and (iv) the fidelity-recovery score is bounded below the structural-recovery score. We will revise the abstract to include a one-sentence reference to these definitions and the derivation steps. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The four studies are summarized only at the level of 'showing structural-fidelity splits, human-validated metric dissociation, and weight-tolerance plateaus consistent with IST's predictions,' with no mention of data tables, statistical tests, exclusion rules, error analysis, or how the metrics were derived independently of the fitted parameters; without these the support for the theorem cannot be evaluated and the risk of circularity remains unaddressed.

    Authors: Sections 5-8 and the supplementary materials contain the full data tables, paired t-tests and ANOVA results (all p < .01 for structural-fidelity splits), exclusion rules (token-overlap threshold and response-length filters), error analysis by model and language, and human-validation protocol with independent raters. The metrics themselves are defined from first principles in Section 3.3 prior to any data collection or parameter fitting. We will revise the abstract to note that these supporting analyses and the pre-specification of metrics are reported in the main text, thereby reducing the appearance of circularity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The provided abstract introduces four distinct objects (I*, I-hat, P, O) and states the Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss as following directly from the absence of private intent in the carrier. This is a standard definitional consequence within the new framework rather than a reduction of the theorem to its own inputs or to fitted data. No equations, self-citations, or study protocols are quoted that would demonstrate a prediction being statistically forced by prior fitting, an ansatz smuggled via citation, or any other enumerated circular pattern. The studies are summarized only as showing consistency with predictions, with no indication that metrics or designs were derived from the same parameters being tested. The framework therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks with independent formal content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on new conceptual distinctions and a theorem introduced in the paper; no external benchmarks or machine-checked proofs are mentioned in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • dimensional weights
    Formalized in the framework but values or fitting procedure not specified in the abstract.
  • encoding masks
    Part of the formalization; specific construction or selection rules not given.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Latent source intent, observable intent proxy, encoded carrier, and model output are routinely conflated in current AI interaction models.
    Stated as the starting point for introducing the framework.
  • ad hoc to paper Private intent absent from the carrier cannot be recovered beyond generic substitution.
    Presented as the Theorem of Irreversible Intent Loss established by the theory.
invented entities (1)
  • Intent Signal Theory (IST) with its four-object distinction and theorem no independent evidence
    purpose: To formalize the missing intent layer in human-AI interaction.
    New framework and theorem introduced without reference to prior equivalent constructs.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5687 in / 1546 out tokens · 47318 ms · 2026-06-29T23:49:37.845879+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Brown, T., Mann, B., Ryder, N. et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33 (2020)

    2020

  2. [2]

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D. et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35 (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Kojima, T., Gu, S.S., Reid, M. et al. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Schulhoff, S., Ilie, M., Balepur, N. et al. The prompt report: A systematic survey of prompting techniques. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.06608 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Bai, Y., Jones, A., Ndousse, K. et al. Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08073 (2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R. et al. Survey of hallucination in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 1–38 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Cui, L. et al. Siren's song in the AI ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01219 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    & Gal, Y

    Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L. & Gal, Y. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature 630, 625–630 (2024)

    2024

  10. [10]

    Liang, P., Bommasani, R., Lee, T. et al. Holistic evaluation of language models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110 (2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J. et al. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 15, 1–45 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Dimension-Level Intent Fidelity Evaluation for Large Language Models: Evidence from Structured Prompt Ablation

    Peng, G. Dimension-level intent fidelity evaluation for large language models: Evidence from structured prompt ablation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.14517 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge Univ

    Searle, J.R. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983)

    1983

  14. [14]

    Logic and conversation

    Grice, H.P. Logic and conversation. in Syntax and Semantics Vol. 3: Speech Acts (eds Cole, P. & Morgan, J.) 41–58 (Academic Press, 1975)

    1975

  15. [15]

    Using Language (Cambridge Univ

    Clark, H.H. Using Language (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996)

    1996

  16. [16]

    A mathematical theory of communication

    Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423 & 623–656 (1948)

    1948

  17. [17]

    & Weaver, W

    Shannon, C.E. & Weaver, W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication (Univ. of Illinois Press, 1949)

    1949

  18. [18]

    & Thomas, J.A

    Cover, T.M. & Thomas, J.A. Elements of Information Theory 2nd edn (Wiley-Interscience, 2006)

    2006

  19. [19]

    Evaluating 5W3H structured prompting for intent alignment in human–AI interaction

    Peng, G. Evaluating 5W3H structured prompting for intent alignment in human–AI interaction. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.18976 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Does structured intent representation generalise? A cross-language, cross-model empirical study of 5W3H prompting

    Peng, G. Does structured intent representation generalise? A cross-language, cross-model empirical study of 5W3H prompting. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25379 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Structured intent as a protocol-like communication layer: Cross-model robustness, framework comparison, and the weak-model compensation effect

    Peng, G. Structured intent as a protocol-like communication layer: Cross-model robustness, framework comparison, and the weak-model compensation effect. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29953 (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    & Henly, A.S

    Keysar, B. & Henly, A.S. Speakers' overestimation of their effectiveness. Psychol. Sci. 13, 207–212 (2002)

    2002

  23. [23]

    Like having a really bad PA

    Luger, E. & Sellen, A. "Like having a really bad PA": The gulf between user expectation and experience of conversational agents. in Proc. CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (ACM, 2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge Univ

    MacKay, D.J.C. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003)

    2003

  25. [25]

    Rate Distortion Theory: A Mathematical Basis for Data Compression (Prentice-Hall, 1971)

    Berger, T. Rate Distortion Theory: A Mathematical Basis for Data Compression (Prentice-Hall, 1971)

    1971

  26. [26]

    Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models

    Xu, Z., Jain, S. & Kankanhalli, M. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.11817 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Liu, Y., Iter, D., Xu, Y. et al. G-Eval: NLG evaluation using GPT-4 with better human alignment. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16634 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Zheng, L., Chiang, W.L., Sheng, Y. et al. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and Chatbot Arena. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 36 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Fabbri, A.R., Kryściński, W., McCann, B. et al. SummEval: Re-evaluating summarisation evaluation. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 9, 391–409 (2021)

    2021

  30. [30]

    Zhou, Y., Muresanu, A.I., Han, Z. et al. Large language models are human-level prompt engineers. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.01910 (2022)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    & Cai, C.J

    Wu, T., Terry, M. & Cai, C.J. AI Chains: Transparent and controllable human-AI interaction by chaining large language model prompts. in Proc. CHI Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst. (ACM, 2022)

    2022

  32. [32]

    The Design of Everyday Things revised edn (Basic Books, 2013)

    Norman, D.A. The Design of Everyday Things revised edn (Basic Books, 2013). Data availability This paper presents a theoretical framework and does not report a newly collected standalone experiment. Its empirical grounding draws on a publicly released evidence repository associated with the four text-generation grounding layers discussed in the manuscript...

    2013

  33. [33]

    It is released publicly to enable independent inspection, verification, and reproduction of the aggregate analyses underlying the grounding evidence

    Purpose of the Repository This repository provides the empirical grounding materials that support the evidence chain discussed in the IST paper. It is released publicly to enable independent inspection, verification, and reproduction of the aggregate analyses underlying the grounding evidence. The repository does not replace journal peer review; it makes ...

  34. [34]

    Paths are relative to dataset/data/ in the repository root

    Repository Structure and Evidence Mapping The table below maps each grounding layer to the corresponding repository module. Paths are relative to dataset/data/ in the repository root. Grounding layer Manuscript § Repository module Scale Main variables Role in present manuscript Behavioural §4, [19] paper1/ 540 outputs GA, encoding condition Grounding evid...

  35. [35]

    Entry point: README.md in the analysis_scripts/ directory

    Measurement-Layer Materials (Detailed) 3.1 Ablation study (01_ablation/) Design: 30 tasks x 3 domains x 8 conditions (FULL + 7 single-dimension ablations) x models (6 for ZH, 3 each for EN and JA) Models: DeepSeek-V3, Qwen-Max, Kimi, Claude Sonnet 4, GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Pro Format: JSONL, one record per output: prompt, output text, GA, f-ICMw, s-ICMw, cond...

  36. [36]

    Task definitions used to generate outputs are in tasks/tasks.json

    Reproducibility Statement All materials listed above are publicly available and can be downloaded, executed, and verified independently. Task definitions used to generate outputs are in tasks/tasks.json. Scoring files are organised by model and language under scores/. No proprietary software is required to reproduce the aggregate statistics reported in th...

  37. [37]

    The materials in this repository are pre-peer-review unless explicitly noted

    Evidence Status and Scope Limitations Evidence status. The materials in this repository are pre-peer-review unless explicitly noted. They constitute public grounding evidence supporting the IST framework, not independently replicated findings. Scope. This paper focuses on single-turn text-generation interactions. Extension to multi-turn, agentic, and mult...