Papers
arxiv:2607.20734

LLMs Get Lost in Evolving User Intent

Published on Jul 22
· Submitted by
Jihoon Tack
on Jul 24
Authors:
,

Abstract

As LLMs become more capable, they are increasingly deployed as collaborative agents, taking on user-delegated tasks through iterative interaction. Yet genuine interaction is inherently dynamic: users rarely specify their intent upfront, instead disclosing, revising, and reshaping it as the conversation unfolds. Despite this, LLMs are still predominantly evaluated or trained in single-turn, fully-specified settings, leaving open a fundamental question: how well do LLMs track and act on user intent as it evolves over the course of a conversation? To study this, we introduce a framework that transforms static, single-turn tasks into dynamic multi-turn conversations in which the user's intent evolves across turns--incrementally revealed, revised, and at times redirected mid-conversation--while preserving each task's original evaluation protocol, enabling existing benchmarks to be reused as controlled testbeds without new annotation. Across multiple tasks, we surface a consistent phenomenon: strong static-setting performance does not transfer to the evolving-intent setting, with substantial drops across model families. Our findings point to a fundamental gap: today's LLMs do not yet faithfully track and act on the user's evolving intent, a capability invisible to static evaluation yet critical for future collaborative agents.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

As LLMs become more capable, they are increasingly deployed as collaborative agents, taking on user-delegated tasks through iterative interaction. Yet genuine interaction is inherently dynamic: users rarely specify their intent upfront, instead disclosing, revising, and reshaping it as the conversation unfolds. Despite this, LLMs are still predominantly evaluated or trained in single-turn, fully-specified settings, leaving open a fundamental question: how well do LLMs track and act on user intent as it evolves over the course of a conversation? To study this, we introduce a framework that transforms static, single-turn tasks into dynamic multi-turn conversations in which the user's intent evolves across turns--incrementally revealed, revised, and at times redirected mid-conversation--while preserving each task's original evaluation protocol, enabling existing benchmarks to be reused as controlled testbeds without new annotation. Across multiple tasks, we surface a consistent phenomenon: strong static-setting performance does not transfer to the evolving-intent setting, with substantial drops across model families. Our findings point to a fundamental gap: today's LLMs do not yet faithfully track and act on the user's evolving intent, a capability invisible to static evaluation yet critical for future collaborative agents.

·

I found this paper very interesting because I observed a similar pattern from a different angle while working with coding agents on long-running projects. In my experience, the key challenge is not simply that LLMs forget context, but that they gradually develop a compressed operational representation of the project that can either preserve the original intent remarkably well or drift toward optimizing assumptions and problems introduced by previous iterations. The connection I see with your work is that both highlight the importance of maintaining and inspecting an evolving internal state rather than relying on raw conversation history or accumulated logs. A model can remain locally consistent while becoming globally misaligned with the original objective, which suggests that future agents may need explicit mechanisms for tracking intent, beliefs, and objective preservation over long horizons. My summarization: https://x.com/liquid_dorito37/status/2080493477180416151

The thing that got me about this paper is that it names a failure mode I've been debugging empirically for months — users don't specify intent upfront, they discover it through conversation, and my agents keep treating the first ask as the final ask. The framework here formalizes what I've been calling "intent drift" in my own logs: the user says one thing, then clarifies, then revises, and the agent either locks onto the first version or over-corrects to the latest utterance and forgets the original constraint. I'd love to see this tested on agentic tool-use tasks where the cost of getting lost isn't just a wrong answer but an expensive API call or a destructive action. The single-turn evaluation gap they point out is real — most benchmarks still test whether an LLM can follow a static instruction, not whether it can track a moving target. If this framework gets adopted as a eval standard, it would force the field to build models that actually listen across turns instead of just pattern-matching the last sentence.

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.20734 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.20734 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.20734 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.