搜索结果：writing

Recent advances in generative AI technologies like large language models have boosted the incorporation of AI assistance in writing workflows, leading to the rise of a new paradigm of human-AI co-creation in writing. To understand how people perceive writings that are produced under this paradigm, in this paper, we conduct an experimental study to understand whether and how the disclosure of the level and type of AI assistance in the writing process would affect people's perceptions of the writing on various aspects, including their evaluation on the quality of the writing and their ranking of different writings. Our results suggest that disclosing the AI assistance in the writing process, especially if AI has provided assistance in generating new content, decreases the average quality ratings for both argumentative essays and creative stories. This decrease in the average quality ratings often comes with an increased level of variations in different individuals' quality evaluations of the same writing. Indeed, factors such as an individual's writing confidence and familiarity with AI writing assistants are shown to moderate the impact of AI assistance disclosure on their writing q

As generative AI (GenAI) systems become increasingly proficient at simulating human-like and well-reasoned text, users may attribute authority to AI outputs, shaping how they engage with writing and reasoning tasks. While prior work has raised concerns about AI overreliance, empirical approaches for observing this phenomenon during open-ended writing remain limited. In this paper, we examine how GenAI assistance influences users' interactions with AI suggestions during writing. We report results from a mixed-methods study in which 47 participants completed analysis and synthesis writing tasks with or without AI assistance. We quantify the textual overlap between AI suggestions and participants' writing and analyze participants' reflections. Our results show that AI assistance is associated with patterns of suggestion reuse. Building on these findings, we design and evaluate an interactive writing interface that may support reflection on the usage of the AI suggestions during writing. Evidence from a small follow-up think-aloud study (n = 4) suggests that the interface can increase users' awareness of how AI outputs are incorporated into their writing and may support more conscious

Evaluating the writing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) remains a significant challenge due to the multidimensional nature of writing skills and the limitations of existing metrics. LLM's performance in thousand-words level and open-ended writing is inadequately assessed by traditional reference-based metrics or modern LLM-as-a-judge methods. We propose Tree-of-Writing (ToW), to resolve the implicit inconsistency often found when LLM-as-a-judge aggregates all sub-features in text evaluation. ToW incorporates a tree-structured workflow by explicitly modeling the aggregation weights of sub-features. We also present HowToBench, a large-scale Chinese writing benchmark encompassing 12 genres and 1302 instructions across three task categories: contextual completion, outline-guided writing, and open-ended generation. ToW successfully mitigates the biases, achieving a 0.93 Pearson correlation with human judgments. Furthermore, we detect that both overlap-based text generation metrics and popular LLM-as-a-judge practices are vulnerable to textual disturbances, while ToW is robust to them. We also uncover a negative correlation between input length and content-related scores in t

Writing is a critical skill for modern science, enabling collaboration, scientific discourse, public outreach, and more. Accordingly, it is important to consider how physicists and astronomers are trained to write. This study aims to understand the landscape of science writing education, specifically in physics and astronomy, in higher education in the United States. An online survey probing various aspects of their writing training in both undergraduate and graduate school was administered to 515 participants who have obtained training in physics and/or astronomy, or related fields, at the level equal to or beyond upper-division undergraduate study. Humanities and writing requirement courses appear to have a key role in general writing education, while laboratory courses and feedback from mentors are the dominant modes of science writing education in undergraduate and graduate school respectively. There is substantial variation in the quality of writing education in physics and astronomy, often dependent on the student's institution and/or mentor. Some participants also report that their success in disciplinary writing was a result of a solid foundation from K-12 education and/or

Speech-to-text technologies have been shown to improve text input efficiency and potentially lower the barriers to writing. Recent LLM-assisted dictation tools aim to support writing with speech by bridging the gaps between speaking and traditional writing. This case study reports on the real-world writing experiences of twelve academic or creative writers using one such tool, Rambler, to write various pieces such as blog posts, diaries, screenplays, notes, or fictional stories, etc. Through a ten-day diary study, we identified the participants' in-context writing strategies using Rambler, such as how they expanded from an outline or organized their loose thoughts for different writing goals. The interviews uncovered the psychological and productivity affordances of writing with speech, pointing to future directions of designing for this writing modality and the utilization of AI support.

As AI writing tools evolve from fixing surface errors to creating language with writers, new capabilities raise concerns about negative impacts on student writers, such as replacing their voices and undermining critical thinking skills. To address these challenges, we look at a parallel transition in university writing centers from focusing on fixing errors to preserving student voices. We develop design guidelines informed by writing center literature and interviews with 10 writing tutors. We illustrate these guidelines in a prototype AI tool, Writor. Writor helps writers revise text by setting goals, providing balanced feedback, and engaging in conversations without generating text verbatim. We conducted an expert review with 30 writing instructors, tutors, and AI researchers on Writor to assess the pedagogical soundness, alignment with writing center pedagogy, and integration contexts. We distill our findings into design implications for future AI writing feedback systems, including designing for trust among AI-skeptical educators.

Writing is a cognitively demanding activity that requires constant decision-making, heavy reliance on working memory, and frequent shifts between tasks of different goals. To build writing assistants that truly align with writers' cognition, we must capture and decode the complete thought process behind how writers transform ideas into final texts. We present ScholaWrite, the first dataset of end-to-end scholarly writing, tracing the multi-month journey from initial drafts to final manuscripts. We contribute three key advances: (1) a Chrome extension that unobtrusively records keystrokes on Overleaf, enabling the collection of realistic, in-situ writing data; (2) a novel corpus of full scholarly manuscripts, enriched with fine-grained annotations of cognitive writing intentions. The dataset includes \LaTeX-based edits from five computer science preprints, capturing nearly 62K text changes over four months; and (3) analyses and insights into the micro-dynamics of scholarly writing, highlighting gaps between human writing processes and the current capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in providing meaningful assistance. ScholaWrite underscores the value of capturing end-to-end

Recent advances in Large Language Models(LLMs) have enabled strong performance in long-form writing, but current training paradigms remain limited: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) remains constrained by data saturation and performance ceilings, while Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR), though successful in verifiable domains like math and code, cannot be directly migrated to open-ended long-form writing due to a lack of ground-truths. To further advance long-form writing, we present Writing-RL: an Adaptive Curriculum Reinforcement Learning framework to advance long-form writing capabilities beyond SFT. The framework consists of three key components: Margin-aware Data Selection strategy that prioritizes samples with high learning potential, Pairwise Comparison Reward mechanism that provides discriminative learning signals in the absence of verifiable rewards, and Dynamic Reference Scheduling approach, which plays a critical role by adaptively adjusting task difficulty based on evolving model performance. Experiments on 7B-scale writer models show that Writing-RL effectively improves long-form writing performance over strong SFT baselines. Furthermore, we observe that

Despite AI tools becoming increasingly embedded in academic practice, little is known about how university students integrate them into their writing processes. We examine how students engage with AI across different writing tasks, and how this engagement is shaped by individual factors including AI literacy, writing confidence, trust, authorship concerns, and motivation. Study~1 surveys 107 UK university students to map task-specific and co-occurring patterns of AI use across five writing stages (ideation, sourcing, planning, drafting, and reviewing) and their associations with individual factors. Study~2 complements this by exploring how these patterns can be assembled in practice, through interviews with 12 postgraduates reflecting on their established use of AI in assessed writing. Together, the studies suggest that AI integration is selective and heterogeneous, forming three recurring and value-oriented configurations: (1) early-stage (learning-oriented), where tools support exploration and understanding; (2) late-stage (quality-oriented), where tools support drafting and refinement; and (3) peripheral (productivity-oriented), where tools are used to reduce friction and sustai

Recent advances in generative AI technologies like large language models raise both excitement and concerns about the future of human-AI co-creation in writing. To unpack people's attitude towards and experience with generative AI-powered writing assistants, in this paper, we conduct an experiment to understand whether and how much value people attach to AI assistance, and how the incorporation of AI assistance in writing workflows changes people's writing perceptions and performance. Our results suggest that people are willing to forgo financial payments to receive writing assistance from AI, especially if AI can provide direct content generation assistance and the writing task is highly creative. Generative AI-powered assistance is found to offer benefits in increasing people's productivity and confidence in writing. However, direct content generation assistance offered by AI also comes with risks, including decreasing people's sense of accountability and diversity in writing. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings.

The dynamic nature of interactions between students and GenAI, as well as their relationship to writing quality, remains underexplored. While most research has examined how general-purpose GenAI can support writing, fewer studies have investigated how students interact with pedagogically designed systems across different phases of the writing process. To address this gap, we evaluated a GenAI-driven essay-writing assistant (EWA) designed to support higher education students in argumentative writing. Drawing on 1,282 interaction logs from 32 undergraduates during a two-hour writing session, Sequential Pattern Mining and K-Means clustering were used to identify behavioral patterns. Two clusters emerged: Cluster 1 emphasized outline planning and essay structure, while Cluster 2 focused on content development. A Mann-Whitney U test revealed a moderate effect size (r = 0.36) in the essay Organization dimension, with Cluster 1 showing higher scores. Qualitative analysis indicated that students with better performance actively wrote and shared essay sections with EWA for feedback, rather than interacted passively by asking questions. These findings suggest implications for teaching and sy

As generative AI tools like ChatGPT become integral to everyday writing, critical questions arise about how to preserve writers' sense of agency and ownership when using these tools. Yet, a systematic understanding of how AI assistance affects different aspects of the writing process - and how this shapes writers' agency - remains underexplored. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review of 109 HCI papers using the PRISMA approach. From this literature, we identify four overarching design strategies for AI writing support: structured guidance, guided exploration, active co-writing, and critical feedback - mapped across the four key cognitive processes in writing: planning, translating, reviewing, and monitoring. We complement this analysis with interviews of 15 writers across diverse domains. Our findings reveal that writers' desired levels of AI intervention vary across the writing process: content-focused writers (e.g., academics) prioritize ownership during planning, while form-focused writers (e.g., creatives) value control over translating and reviewing. Writers' preferences are also shaped by contextual goals, values, and notions of originality and authorship. By e

While deep reasoning with long chain-of-thought has dramatically improved large language models in verifiable domains like mathematics, its effectiveness for open-ended tasks such as writing remains unexplored. In this paper, we conduct a systematic investigation revealing that existing mainstream reasoning models achieve limited gains on open-ended writing tasks. Our further analysis shows that these models lack deep reflection and revision patterns in open-ended writing, resulting in substantially smaller improvements compared to mathematical reasoning tasks. To address this limitation, we introduce R2-Write: an automated framework that synthesizes high-quality thinking trajectories enriched with explicit reflection and revision patterns through iterative writer-judge interaction. To prevent redundant reflections, we design a process reward mechanism that supervises reflection quality during reinforcement learning, improving both performance and token efficiency. Extensive experiments across multiple creative writing and deep-research benchmarks demonstrate significant improvements, validating that explicitly incorporating reflection and revision patterns unlocks deep reasoning c

This work sheds light on whether and how creative writers' needs are met by existing research and commercial writing support tools (WST). We conducted a need finding study to gain insight into the writers' process during creative writing through a qualitative analysis of the response from an online questionnaire and Reddit discussions on r/Writing. Using a systematic analysis of 115 tools and 67 research papers, we map out the landscape of how digital tools facilitate the writing process. Our triangulation of data reveals that research predominantly focuses on the writing activity and overlooks pre-writing activities and the importance of visualization. We distill 10 key takeaways to inform future research on WST and point to opportunities surrounding underexplored areas. Our work offers a holistic and up-to-date account of how tools have transformed the writing process, guiding the design of future tools that address writers' evolving and unmet needs.

Large language models are extensively utilized in creative writing applications. Creative writing requires a balance between subjective writing quality (e.g., literariness and emotional expression) and objective constraint following (e.g., format requirements and word limits). Existing methods find it difficult to balance these two aspects: single reward strategies fail to improve both abilities simultaneously, while fixed-weight mixed-reward methods lack the ability to adapt to different writing scenarios. To address this problem, we propose Reinforcement Learning with Mixed Rewards (RLMR), utilizing a dynamically mixed reward system from a writing reward model evaluating subjective writing quality and a constraint verification model assessing objective constraint following. The constraint following reward weight is adjusted dynamically according to the writing quality within sampled groups, ensuring that samples violating constraints get negative advantage in GRPO and thus penalized during training, which is the key innovation of this proposed method. We conduct automated and manual evaluations across diverse model families from 8B to 72B parameters. Additionally, we construct a

As generative AI tools like ChatGPT enter classrooms, workplaces and everyday thinking, writing is at risk of becoming a formality -- outsourced, automated and stripped of its cognitive value. But writing is not just output; it is how we learn to think. This paper explores what is lost when we let machines write for us, drawing on cognitive psychology, educational theory and real classroom practices. We argue that the process of writing -- messy, slow, often frustrating -- is where a human deep learning happens. The paper also explores the current possibilities of AI-text detection, how educators can adapt through smarter pedagogy rather than bans, and why the ability to recognize machine-generated language may become a critical literacy of the 21st century. In a world where writing can be faked, learning can not.

The development of Natural Language Generation models has led to the creation of powerful Artificial Intelligence-assisted writing tools. These tools are capable of predicting users' needs and actively providing suggestions as they write. In this work, we conduct a comparative user-study between such tools from an information retrieval lens: pull and push. Specifically, we investigate the user demand of AI-assisted writing, the impact of the two paradigms on quality, ownership of the writing product, and efficiency and enjoyment of the writing process. We also seek to understand the impact of bias of AI-assisted writing. Our findings show that users welcome seamless assistance of AI in their writing. Furthermore, AI helped users to diversify the ideas in their writing while keeping it clear and concise more quickly. Users also enjoyed the collaboration with AI-assisted writing tools and did not feel a lack of ownership. Finally, although participants did not experience bias in our experiments, they still expressed explicit and clear concerns that should be addressed in future AI-assisted writing tools.

Writing has long been considered a hallmark of human intelligence and remains a pinnacle task for artificial intelligence (AI) due to the intricate cognitive processes involved. Recently, rapid advancements in generative AI, particularly through the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), have significantly transformed the landscape of writing assistance. However, underrepresented languages like Arabic encounter significant challenges in the development of advanced AI writing tools, largely due to the limited availability of data. This scarcity constrains the training of effective models, impeding the creation of sophisticated writing assistance technologies. To address these issues, we present Gazelle, a comprehensive dataset for Arabic writing assistance. In addition, we offer an evaluation framework designed to enhance Arabic writing assistance tools. Our human evaluation of leading LLMs, including GPT-4, GPT-4o, Cohere Command R+, and Gemini 1.5 Pro, highlights their respective strengths and limitations in addressing the challenges of Arabic writing. Our findings underscore the need for continuous model training and dataset enrichment to manage the complexities of Arabic l

Large language models have introduced exciting new opportunities and challenges in designing and developing new AI-assisted writing support tools. Recent work has shown that leveraging this new technology can transform writing in many scenarios such as ideation during creative writing, editing support, and summarization. However, AI-supported expository writing--including real-world tasks like scholars writing literature reviews or doctors writing progress notes--is relatively understudied. In this position paper, we argue that developing AI supports for expository writing has unique and exciting research challenges and can lead to high real-world impacts. We characterize expository writing as evidence-based and knowledge-generating: it contains summaries of external documents as well as new information or knowledge. It can be seen as the product of authors' sensemaking process over a set of source documents, and the interplay between reading, reflection, and writing opens up new opportunities for designing AI support. We sketch three components for AI support design and discuss considerations for future research.