Cited by 33Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorRecommender Systems and TechniquesTopic Modeling

Using Large Language Models to Generate, Validate, and Apply User Intent Taxonomies

Open access
Shah, Chirag, White, Ryen, Andersen, Reid, Buscher, Georg, Counts, Scott, Das, Sarkar, Montazer, Ali, Manivannan, Sathish +7 more·2025·ACM Transactions on the Web

Abstract

Understanding user intents in information access scenarios can help us provide more relevant and personalized search results and recommendations. However, analyzing user intents is not easy, especially for emerging forms of Web search such as Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven chat. To understand user intents from retrospective log data, we need a way to label them with meaningful categories that capture their diversity and dynamics. Existing methods rely on manual or Machine-Learned (ML) labeling, which is either expensive or inflexible for large and dynamic datasets. Large Language Models (LLMs) could generate rich and relevant concepts, descriptions, and examples for user intents using log data of user interactions. However, using LLMs to generate a user intent taxonomy and applying it for a given Information Retrieval (IR) application can be problematic for two main reasons: (1) such a taxonomy is not externally validated; and (2) there may be an undesirable feedback loop if an LLM does both these tasks without external validation. To address this, we propose a new methodology with human experts and assessors to verify the quality of the LLM-generated taxonomy. We also present an end-to-end pipeline that uses an LLM with Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) to produce, refine, and apply labels for user intent analysis in log data. We demonstrate its effectiveness by uncovering new insights into user intents from search and chat logs from the Microsoft Bing Web search engine. The novelty in this research stems from the method for generating purpose-driven user intent taxonomies with strong validation. Our approach not only helps remove methodological and practical bottlenecks from intent-focused research, but also provides a new framework for generating, validating, and applying other kinds of taxonomies in a scalable and adaptable way, with reasonable human effort.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3732294

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Large language models effectively capture contextual dependencies between user queries.

    “Leveraging the global perception capabilities of self-attention mechanisms in sequence modeling, large language models effectively capture contextual dependencies between user queries1 .”

    From Enhancing Search Efficiency through LLM-Based User Memory Systems for Query Matching and Intent Modeling (2026) · cites this paper as [1]

    The annotation results (section headed “Leisure,” page unavailable) report substantial agreement between GPT-4 and human annotators on user-intent labels, supporting a narrower claim that an LLM can interpret user requests. But §5.2 says the unit of analysis was a single request; it does not show that LLMs capture dependencies between multiple user queries. The paper also does not attribute its results to self-attention mechanisms. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 78 · Cited by 33

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Marissa D Abram, Karen T Mancini, and R David Parker. 2020. Methods to integrate natural language processing into qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 19 (2020), 1609406920984608.
  2. Eugene Agichtein, Ryen W White, Susan T Dumais, and Paul N Bennet. 2012. Search, interrupted: understanding and predicting search task continuation. In Proceedings of the 35th international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and devel- opment in information retrieval. 315-324.
  3. Qingyao Ai, Ting Bai, Zhao Cao, Yi Chang, Jiawei Chen, Zhumin Chen, Zhiyong Cheng, Shoubin Dong, Zhicheng Dou, Fuli Feng, et al. 2023. Information Retrieval Meets Large Language Models: A Strategic Report from Chinese IR Community. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09751 (2023). · arXiv
  4. Maryam Amirizaniani, Tanya Roosta, Aman Chadha, and Chirag Shah. 2024. Au- ditLLM: A Tool for Auditing Large Language Models Using Multiprobe Approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09334 (2024). · arXiv
  5. Maryam Amirizaniani, Jihan Yao, Adrian Lavergne, Elizabeth Snell Okada, Aman Chadha, Tanya Roosta, and Chirag Shah. 2024. Developing a Framework for Auditing Large Language Models Using Human-in-the-Loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09346 (2024). · arXiv
  6. Dogu Araci. 2019. Finbert: Financial sentiment analysis with pre-trained language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.10063 (2019). · arXiv
  7. Muneera Bano, Didar Zowghi, and Jon Whittle. 2023. Exploring Qualitative Research Using LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13298 (2023). · arXiv
  8. Garbiel Bénédict, Ruqing Zhang, and Donald Metzler. 2023. Gen-IR@ SIGIR 2023: The First Workshop on Generative Information Retrieval. In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 3460-3463.
  9. Valeriia Bolotova, Vladislav Blinov, Falk Scholer, W Bruce Croft, and Mark Sander- son. 2022. A non-factoid question-answering taxonomy. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 1196-1207.
  10. Andrei Broder. 2002. A taxonomy of web search. In ACM Sigir forum, Vol. 36. ACM New York, NY, USA, 3-10.
  11. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 1877-1901.
  12. Courtni Byun, Piper Vasicek, and Kevin Seppi. 2023. Dispensing with Humans in Human-Computer Interaction Research. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-26.
  13. Belen Carrion, Teresa Onorati, Paloma Díaz, and Vasiliki Triga. 2019. A taxon- omy generation tool for semantic visual analysis of large corpus of documents. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (2019), 32919-32937.
  14. Soumen Chakrabarti, Byron Dom, Rakesh Agrawal, and Prabhakar Raghavan. 1997. Using taxonomy, discriminants, and signatures for navigating in text databases. In VLDB, Vol. 97. 446-455.
  15. Long Chen, Dell Zhang, and Levene Mark. 2012. Understanding user intent in community question answering. In Proceedings of the 21st international conference on world wide web. 823-828.
  16. Pu-Jeng Cheng, Ching-Hsiang Tsai, Chen-Ming Hung, and Lee-Feng Chien. 2006. Query taxonomy generation for web search. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management. 862-863.
  17. Shui-Lung Chuang and Lee-Feng Chien. 2003. Automatic query taxonomy gen- eration for information retrieval applications. Online Information Review 27, 4 (2003), 243-255.
  18. Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement 20, 1 (1960), 37-46.
  19. Nick Craswell, Onno Zoeter, Michael Taylor, and Bill Ramsey. 2008. An ex- perimental comparison of click position-bias models. In Proceedings of the 2008 international conference on web search and data mining. 87-94.
  20. Yogesh K Dwivedi, Nir Kshetri, Laurie Hughes, Emma Louise Slade, Anand Je- yaraj, Arpan Kumar Kar, Abdullah M Baabdullah, Alex Koohang, Vishnupriya Raghavan, Manju Ahuja, et al. 2023. "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisci- plinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management 71 (2023), 102642.
  21. Guglielmo Faggioli, Laura Dietz, Charles Clarke, Gianluca Demartini, Matthias Hagen, Claudia Hauff, Noriko Kando, Evangelos Kanoulas, Martin Potthast, Benno Stein, et al. 2023. Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09161 (2023). · arXiv
  22. Joseph L Fleiss. 1971. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological bulletin 76, 5 (1971), 378.
  23. Jianfeng Gao, Chenyan Xiong, and Paul Bennett. 2020. Recent advances in conversational information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 2421-2424.
  24. Philipp Grandeit, Carolyn Haberkern, Maximiliane Lang, Jens Albrecht, and Robert Lehmann. 2020. Using BERT for qualitative content analysis in psychoso- cial online counseling. In Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science. 11-23.
  25. Xingwei He, Zhenghao Lin, Yeyun Gong, Alex Jin, Hang Zhang, Chen Lin, Jian Jiao, Siu Ming Yiu, Nan Duan, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2023. Annollm: Making large language models to be better crowdsourced annotators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.16854 (2023). · arXiv
  26. Jeffrey Heer. 2019. Agency plus automation: Designing artificial intelligence into interactive systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, 6 (2019), 1844-1850.
  27. Tom Hope, Doug Downey, Daniel S Weld, Oren Etzioni, and Eric Horvitz. 2023. A computational inflection for scientific discovery. Commun. ACM 66, 8 (2023), 62-73.
  28. Bernard J Jansen, Danielle L Booth, and Amanda Spink. 2007. Determining the user intent of web search engine queries. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web. 1149-1150.
  29. Vitor Jeronymo, Luiz Bonifacio, Hugo Abonizio, Marzieh Fadaee, Roberto Lotufo, Jakub Zavrel, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2023. InPars-v2: Large Language Mod- els as Efficient Dataset Generators for Information Retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.01820 (2023). · arXiv
  30. Angelika Kaplan, Thomas Kühn, Sebastian Hahner, Niko Benkler, Jan Keim, Dominik Fuchß, Sophie Corallo, and Robert Heinrich. 2022. Introducing an Eval- uation Method for Taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering. 311-316.
  31. Melanie Kellar, Carolyn Watters, and Michael Shepherd. 2007. A field study characterizing Web-based information-seeking tasks. Journal of the American Society for information science and technology 58, 7 (2007), 999-1018.
  32. Weize Kong, Rui Li, Jie Luo, Aston Zhang, Yi Chang, and James Allan. 2015. Predicting search intent based on pre-search context. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 503-512.
  33. Shuokai Li, Ruobing Xie, Yongchun Zhu, Xiang Ao, Fuzhen Zhuang, and Qing He. 2022. User-centric conversational recommendation with multi-aspect user modeling. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 223-233.
  34. Yuelin Li and Nicholas J Belkin. 2008. A faceted approach to conceptualizing tasks in information seeking. Information processing & management 44, 6 (2008), 1822-1837.
  35. Jiqun Liu, Matthew Mitsui, Nicholas J Belkin, and Chirag Shah. 2019. Task, infor- mation seeking intentions, and user behavior: Toward a multi-level understand- ing of Web search. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference on human information interaction and retrieval. 123-132.
  36. Matthew Mitsui, Chirag Shah, and Nicholas J Belkin. 2016. Extracting information seeking intentions for web search sessions. In Proceedings of the 39th International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 841- 844.
  37. Steven Moore, Richard Tong, Anjali Singh, Zitao Liu, Xiangen Hu, Yu Lu, Joleen Liang, Chen Cao, Hassan Khosravi, Paul Denny, et al. 2023. Empowering Educa- tion with LLMs-The Next-Gen Interface and Content Generation. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education. Springer, 32-37.
  38. Tadeusz Morzy, Marek Wojciechowski, and Maciej Zakrzewicz. 2000. Data mining support in database management systems. In Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery: Second International Conference, DaWaK 2000 London, UK, September 4-6, 2000 Proceedings 2. Springer, 382-392.
  39. Joe Raad and Christophe Cruz. 2015. A survey on ontology evaluation methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Ontology Development, part of the 7th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management.
  40. Filip Radlinski and Nick Craswell. 2017. A theoretical framework for conversa- tional search. In Proceedings of the 2017 conference on conference human informa- tion interaction and retrieval. 117-126.
  41. Pengjie Ren, Zhongkun Liu, Xiaomeng Song, Hongtao Tian, Zhumin Chen, Zhaochun Ren, and Maarten de Rijke. 2021. Wizard of search engine: Access to information through conversations with search engines. In Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on research and development in information retrieval. 533-543.
  42. Daniel E Rose and Danny Levinson. 2004. Understanding user goals in web search. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on World Wide Web. 13-19.
  43. Scott Spangler and Jeffrey Kreulen. 2002. Interactive methods for taxonomy editing and validation. In Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on Information and knowledge management. 665-668.
  44. Jaime Teevan, Eytan Adar, Rosie Jones, and Michael AS Potts. 2007. Information re-retrieval: Repeat queries in Yahoo's logs. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 151-158.
  45. Petter Törnberg. 2023. How to use LLMs for Text Analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13106 (2023). · arXiv
  46. Ryen W White and Steven M Drucker. 2007. Investigating behavioral variability in web search. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web. 21-30.
  47. Hong Xie. 2002. Patterns between interactive intentions and information-seeking strategies. Information processing and Management 38, 1 (2002), 55-77.
  48. Hui Yang. 2012. Constructing task-specific taxonomies for document collection browsing. In Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. 1278-1289.
  49. Oren Zamir and Oren Etzioni. 1998. Web document clustering: A feasibility demonstration. In Proceedings of the 21st annual international ACM SIGIR confer- ence on Research and development in information retrieval. 46-54.
  50. Hongfei Zhang, Xia Song, Chenyan Xiong, Corby Rosset, Paul N Bennett, Nick Craswell, and Saurabh Tiwary. 2019. Generic intent representation in web search. In Proceedings of the 42nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval. 65-74.
  51. Peiyan Zhang, Jiayan Guo, Chaozhuo Li, Yueqi Xie, Jae Boum Kim, Yan Zhang, Xing Xie, Haohan Wang, and Sunghun Kim. 2023. Efficiently leveraging multi- level user intent for session-based recommendation via atten-mixer network. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. 168-176.

Authors
Shah, C., White, R., Andersen, R., Buscher, G., Counts, S., Das, S., Montazer, A., Manivannan, S., Neville, J., Rangan, N., Safavi, T., Suri, S., Wan, M., Wang, L., & Yang, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts
Venue
ACM Transactions on the Web
Published
2025-08-22
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
1-29
ISSN
  • 1559-1131 (ISSN-L)
  • 1559-114X
OpenAlex
W4410125989
Cited by
33
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 7
FWCI
27.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on the Web (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, human-in-the-loop, search logs, chat logs, Bing search engine, information retrieval, personalized search

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review