Dimension-Level Intent Fidelity Evaluation for Large Language Models: Evidence from Structured Prompt Ablation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Holistic evaluation scores capture overall output quality but do not distinguish whether a model reproduced the structural form of a user's request from whether it preserved the user's specific intent. We propose a dimension-level intent fidelity evaluation framework, applied here through a structured prompt ablation study across 2,880 outputs spanning three languages, three task domains, and six LLMs, that separately measures structural recovery and intent fidelity for each semantic dimension. This framework reveals a systematic structural-fidelity split: among Chinese-language outputs with complete paired scores, 25.7% received perfect holistic alignment scores (GA=5) while exhibiting measurable dimensional intent deficits; among English-language outputs, this proportion rose to 58.6%. Human evaluation confirmed that these split-zone outputs represent genuine quality deficits and that dimensional fidelity scores track human judgements more reliably than holistic scores do. A public-private decomposition of 2,520 ablation cells characterises when models successfully compensate for missing intent and when they fail, while proxy annotation distinguishes prior inferability from default recoverability. A weight-perturbation experiment shows that moderate misalignment is typically absorbed, whereas severe dimensional inversion is consistently harmful. These findings demonstrate that dimension-level intent fidelity evaluation is a necessary complement to holistic assessment when evaluating LLM outputs for user-specific tasks.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.
Builds on
11 of 18 references.
References · 11
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
- 2023A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 1,242
- 2023Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Modelscited by 1,228
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2023A Survey of Hallucination in Large Foundation Modelscited by 368
- 2026Evaluating 5W3H Structured Prompting for Intent Alignment in Human-AI Interactioncited by 4
- 2026Does Structured Intent Representation Generalize? A Cross-Language, Cross-Model Empirical Study of 5W3H Promptingcited by 3
- 2026Structured Intent as a Protocol-Like Communication Layer: Cross-Model Robustness, Framework Comparison, and the Weak-Model Compensation Effectcited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.