BloomIntent: Automating Search Evaluation with LLM-Generated Fine-Grained User Intents
Authors
If 100 people issue the same search query, they may have 100 different goals. While existing work on user-centric AI evaluation highlights the importance of aligning systems with fine-grained user intents, current search evaluation methods struggle to represent and assess this diversity. We introduce BloomIntent, a user-centric search evaluation method that uses user intents as the evaluation unit. BloomIntent first generates a set of plausible, fine-grained search intents grounded on taxonomies of user attributes and information-seeking intent types. Then, BloomIntent provides an automated evaluation of search results against each intent powered by large language models. To support practical analysis, BloomIntent clusters semantically similar intents and summarizes evaluation outcomes in a structured interface. With three technical evaluations, we showed that BloomIntent generated fine-grained, evaluable, and realistic intents and produced scalable assessments of intent-level satisfaction that achieved 72% agreement with expert evaluators. In a case study (N=4), we showed that BloomIntent supported search specialists in identifying intents for ambiguous queries, uncovering underserved user needs, and discovering actionable insights for improving search experiences. By shifting from query-level to intent-level evaluation, BloomIntent reimagines how search systems can be assessed---not only for performance but for their ability to serve a multitude of user goals.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 63%
More Isn't Always Better: Balancing Decision Accuracy and Conformity Pressures in Multi-AI Advice
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
Sensing What Surveys Miss: Understanding and Personalizing Proactive LLM Support by User Modeling
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
Belief Updating and Delegation in Multi-Task Human–AI Interaction: Evidence from Controlled Simulations
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
Strategic Tradeoffs Between Humans and AI in Multi-Agent Bargaining
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
Making Absence Visible in Intelligent Summarization Interfaces
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
"Un-default" Behavior Tuning: Specifying Model Behavior outside the Norm with LLM Self-Playing and Self-Improving
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
OntoScope: Using a Divergent-Convergent Interaction Framework to Support LLM-based Ontology Scoping
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 63%
Vulnerability of LLM Outputs to Heuristics-Inducing Prompt Structures
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)