Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.28929

Known Intents, New Combinations: Clause-Factorized Decoding for Compositional Multi-Intent Detection

Abhilash Nandy
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Multi-intent detection papers usually ask whether a model can recover multiple intents from one utterance. We ask a harder and, for deployment, more useful question: can it recover new combinations of familiar intents? Existing benchmarks only weakly test this, because train and test often share the same broad co-occurrence patterns. We introduce CoMIX-Shift, a controlled benchmark built to stress compositional generalization in multi-intent detection through held-out intent pairs, discourse-pattern shift, longer and noisier wrappers, held-out clause templates, and zero-shot triples. We also present ClauseCompose, a lightweight decoder trained only on singleton intents, and compare it to whole-utterance baselines including a fine-tuned tiny BERT model. Across three random seeds, ClauseCompose reaches 95.7 exact match on unseen intent pairs, 93.9 on discourse-shifted pairs, 62.5 on longer/noisier pairs, 49.8 on held-out templates, and 91.1 on unseen triples. WholeMultiLabel reaches 81.4, 55.7, 18.8, 15.5, and 0.0; the BERT baseline reaches 91.5, 77.6, 48.9, 11.0, and 0.0. We also add a 240-example manually authored SNIPS-style compositional set with five held-out pairs; there, ClauseCompose reaches 97.5 exact match on unseen pairs and 86.7 under connector shift, compared with 41.3 and 10.4 for WholeMultiLabel. The results suggest that multi-intent detection needs more compositional evaluation, and that simple factorization goes surprisingly far once evaluation asks for it.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Abhilash Nandy. 2026-03-30. Known Intents, New Combinations: Clause-Factorized Decoding for Compositional Multi-Intent Detection. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.28929

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Geometric Uncertainty for Detecting and Correcting Hallucinations in LLMs

Large language models are known to hallucinate, generating linguistically plausible but incorrect answers to questions. Uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a strategy to detect such behaviour, but existing methods lack a unified framework to assess reliability at both the prompt and answer level. We introduce a geometric framework which quantifies language model uncertainty at both levels by explicitly modelling a prompt-conditioned semantic distribution in answer embedding space. Our approach is black-box and sampling-based; we generate multiple answers per prompt, and use archetypal analysis to estimate a geometric support for the answer distribution. At the prompt level, we approximate the distribution entropy to quantify uncertainty; for each individual answer, we then use notions of atypicality to assess its reliability relative to the batch. We employ our framework to not only detect hallucinations but correct them, by selecting the batch example deemed most reliable. Experiments show that our framework performs comparably to or better than prior methods on short form question-answering datasets, and achieves superior results on medical datasets where hallucinations carry particularly critical risks. Beyond pure performance, we suggest the theoretical grounding of our work provides support for semantic distributions as useful objects of study for language model uncertainty.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Calibrated Confidence Expression for Radiology Report Generation

Safe deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) in radiology report generation requires not only accurate predictions but also clinically interpretable indicators of when outputs should be thoroughly reviewed, enabling selective radiologist verification and reducing the risk of hallucinated findings influencing clinical decisions. One intuitive approach to this is verbalized confidence, where the model explicitly states its certainty. However, current state-of-the-art language models are often overconfident, and research on calibration in multimodal settings such as radiology report generation is limited. To address this gap, we introduce ConRad (Confidence Calibration for Radiology Reports), a reinforcement learning framework for fine-tuning medical LVLMs to produce calibrated verbalized confidence estimates alongside radiology reports. We study two settings: a single report-level confidence score and a sentence-level variant assigning a confidence to each claim. Both are trained using the GRPO algorithm with reward functions based on the logarithmic scoring rule, which incentivizes truthful self-assessment by penalizing miscalibration and guarantees optimal calibration under reward maximization. Experimentally, ConRad substantially improves calibration and outperforms competing methods. In a clinical evaluation we show that ConRad's report level scores are well aligned with clinicians' judgment. By highlighting full reports or low-confidence statements for targeted review, ConRad can support safer clinical integration of AI-assistance for report generation.

cs.CL↗