Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models for the Machine-Assisted Resolution of User Intentions

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.08576
• Title: Comparative Analysis of Large Language Models for the Machine-Assisted Resolution of User Intentions
• Authors: Justus Flerlage (Technische Universität Berlin), Alexander Acker (logsight.ai GmbH), Odej Kao (Technische Universität Berlin)
• Classification: cs.SE cs.AI cs.CL cs.HC
• Conference: HAIC 2025: First International Workshop on Human-AI Collaborative Systems
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.08576

Abstract

This research explores the transformative role of Large Language Models (LLMs) in natural language understanding and user intent resolution, particularly their capabilities in orchestrating complex workflows. The study focuses on the transition from traditional GUI-driven interfaces toward intuitive language-first interaction paradigms. However, existing implementations often rely on cloud-based proprietary models, which present limitations in privacy, autonomy, and scalability. This paper evaluates the feasibility of locally deployed open-source LLMs as foundational components for future intent-based operating systems through comparative analysis of open-source and open-access models against OpenAI's proprietary GPT-4 system.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problems

1. Need for Interaction Paradigm Shift: Traditional operating systems based on GUI, hierarchical file management, and shell mechanisms require users to manually coordinate multiple applications, a process that is cumbersome and time-consuming
2. Privacy and Autonomy Challenges: Existing cloud-based proprietary models present limitations in privacy, autonomy, and scalability
3. Necessity of Local Deployment: To achieve truly robust and trustworthy language-first interaction paradigms, local deployment is not merely convenient but essential

Research Significance

• Advancing the transition from GUI-driven to language-first interaction paradigms
• Evaluating the feasibility of open-source LLMs in future intent-driven operating systems
• Promoting decentralization and democratization of AI infrastructure

Limitations of Existing Approaches

• Dependence on external cloud infrastructure, lacking autonomy
• Privacy and data security concerns
• Network dependency limiting application scenarios

Core Contributions

1. First Systematic Comparison: Comprehensive comparative analysis of open-source/open-access LLMs versus proprietary GPT-4 models on user intent resolution tasks
2. Practical System Architecture: Design and implementation of a Controller-based system architecture supporting dynamic execution of LLM-generated workflows
3. Multi-dimensional Evaluation Framework: Establishment of an evaluation system encompassing response time, time-to-first-token, code quality, and other dimensions
4. Feasibility Validation of Open-Source LLMs: Demonstration that open-source models achieve performance levels approaching proprietary models on user intent resolution tasks

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Converting user natural language intent into executable workflows, specifically:

• Input: User's natural language intent description
• Output: Executable workflow in Python code form
• Constraints: Code must invoke a predefined set of API functions

System Architecture

Core Components

1. Controller: Central coordination unit managing communication with LLMs and workflow execution
2. Function Table: Catalog containing available functions and their specifications, providing function signatures and implementation callbacks
3. Prompt Formatter: Generates LLM prompts based on user intent and Function Table
4. Executor: Executes LLM-generated code in a controlled environment
5. LLM Service: Externally hosted LLM interface

Workflow Modeling

• Conceptualizing workflows as deterministic state machines
• Modeling using imperative programming language (Python)
• Supporting sequential steps and complex control flow structures (loops, branches)
• Enabling step interruption, preemption, and asynchronous task management

Technical Innovations

1. State Machine and Code Equivalence: Innovatively models workflows as state machines with state transitions implemented through Python code execution
2. Controlled Execution Environment: Restricts executable functions through Function Table to ensure security
3. Unified Multi-Model Interface: Designs a unified evaluation framework supporting multiple LLMs

Experimental Setup

Test Models

Open-Source/Open-Access Models:

• falcon-3-10b-instruct
• qwen-2.5-14b-instruct
• phi-4

Proprietary Models:

• gpt-4o
• gpt-4o-mini
• gpt-4-turbo
• gpt-4.5-preview-2025-02-27

Test Intent Set

Nine user intents of varying complexity:

1. Simple baseline functionality (e.g., "Please sleep for 5 seconds")
2. External information requests (e.g., query temperature, Wikipedia summaries)
3. System-oriented tasks (e.g., file listing, remote installation)
4. Media interaction (e.g., play random song)
5. Composite tasks (e.g., send file to insurance company)

Evaluation Metrics

1. Functional Correctness: Intent resolution success rate
2. Response Time: Total time to receive complete output
3. Time-to-First-Token: Time to receive initial output
4. Code Quality: Presence of preamble, postscript, and code comments

Implementation Details

• Controller implemented in Python 3
• Execution on Android device using Termux environment
• Model temperature set to 0.0 for deterministic results
• Each intent tested once per LLM

Experimental Results

Main Results

Intent Resolution Success Rate

Specific Performance:

• falcon-3-10b-instruct: 7/9 successful
• phi-4: 7/9 successful
• qwen-2.5-14b-instruct: 7/9 successful
• gpt-4o, gpt-4o-mini, gpt-4.5-preview: 8/9 successful
• gpt-4-turbo: 7/9 successful

Performance Metrics Comparison

Average Response Time:

• Fastest: gpt-4o (1.75s)
• Fastest open-source: qwen-2.5-14b-instruct (3.42s)
• Slowest: gpt-4.5-preview-2025-02-27 (7.24s)

Average Time-to-First-Token:

• Fastest: falcon-3-10b-instruct (353.4ms)
• Slowest: gpt-4.5-preview-2025-02-27 (900.1ms)

Detailed Analysis

Failure Case Analysis

1. Intent 8 (Wikipedia Summary): Nearly all models failed due to content exceeding context window
2. Format Issues: falcon-3-10b-instruct used incorrect code block markers in Intent 7
3. Function Selection Errors: Some models selected inappropriate API functions for complex intents

Code Quality Characteristics

• Preamble/Postscript: Open-source models generally lack these; proprietary models show mixed results
• Code Comments: phi-4 and most proprietary models tend to include comments
• Code Correctness: Most generated code is syntactically and logically correct

Related Work

Core Technical Foundations

1. Transformer Architecture: Foundation of all modern LLMs, enabling parallelized training and high-quality NLP
2. Code Generation: Applications in code assistance tools such as GitHub Copilot
3. Intent Recognition: Related research on user intent identification in conversational systems

Application Domain Extensions

• Personal Assistants: Existing solutions such as Siri, Cortana, Alexa
• Operating System Integration: Research on LLM-agent-oriented operating systems such as AIOS
• GUI Automation: Research on AI directly operating existing GUI applications

Security and Privacy

• Data Privacy: Privacy concerns in training data and user information handling
• AI Risks: Systematic analysis of issues including hallucinations and erroneous code generation

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Performance Proximity: Open-source LLMs demonstrate performance approaching proprietary models on user intent resolution tasks, achieving 77.8% success rate (7/9)
2. Acceptable Response Time: While proprietary models show advantages in response time, open-source model performance remains within acceptable ranges
3. Local Deployment Feasibility: Validates the feasibility of constructing intent-driven systems using self-hosted open-source models

Limitations

1. Single-Test Constraint: Each intent tested only once, lacking statistical significance verification
2. Computational Resource Requirements: Current models still require substantial computational resources, limiting truly local deployment
3. Security Risks: Direct execution of generated code presents security vulnerabilities requiring more robust sandboxing mechanisms
4. API Coverage Scope: Current API set is relatively limited, struggling with more complex user intents

Future Directions

1. Model Optimization: Reducing model size and computational requirements through pruning, distillation, and quantization techniques
2. Security Mechanisms: Developing more robust isolation and sandboxing mechanisms
3. API Expansion: Constructing more comprehensive APIs to handle diverse user intents
4. Alignment Issues: Addressing AI system shutdown problems and alignment deception issues

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Significant Research Value: First systematic evaluation of open-source LLMs' application potential in intent-driven operating systems
2. Reasonable Experimental Design: Encompasses test cases of varying complexity with comprehensive evaluation dimensions
3. Technical Innovation: State machine and code execution equivalence modeling demonstrates innovation
4. High Practical Value: Provides important reference for future operating system design

Weaknesses

1. Limited Test Scale: Only nine test cases with relatively small sample size
2. Missing Statistical Analysis: Lacks confidence intervals and significance testing
3. Insufficient Security Consideration: Relatively superficial discussion of code execution security risks
4. Unverified Long-term Reliability: Does not consider model stability during extended use

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides important benchmark for LLM integration in operating systems
2. Practical Value: Demonstrates feasibility of open-source solutions, promoting technology democratization
3. Future-Oriented: Indicates direction for next-generation human-computer interaction interface design

Applicable Scenarios

1. Privacy-Sensitive Environments: Enterprise and personal applications requiring local processing
2. Resource-Constrained Devices: Mobile devices and edge computing scenarios
3. Customization Requirements: Professional domains requiring specific functional optimization
4. Research Prototypes: Academic research and proof-of-concept systems

References

This paper cites 38 important references covering Transformer architecture, LLM applications, code generation, human-computer interaction, AI safety, and other related research domains, providing a solid theoretical foundation for the research.

Overall Assessment: This is a forward-looking and practically valuable research paper that systematically evaluates open-source LLMs' application potential in future operating systems for the first time. While presenting certain limitations in experimental scale and security analysis, its research conclusions hold significant importance for promoting AI technology democratization and advancing next-generation human-computer interaction interface development.