Ai-Assisted Writing

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1 $\geq$ 0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.

Generative AI writing assistants and the Large Language Models (LLMs) that power them are increasingly part of how voters gather information before elections. With growing evidence that they influence users' opinions, it is increasingly important to understand the views and positions of these tools. To better understand these views, we examine the stances supplied by six LLMs on a variety of Swedish-language writing tasks ahead of the 2026 Swedish parliamentary election. We cross 107 policy propositions with 77 writing templates and neutral, positive, and negative prompt framings, producing 24,717 prompts per model and 148,302 responses. To study these, we look at the models' default stance tendencies, compare how they respond to similar issues, and compare their responses with those of each of Sweden's eight parliamentary parties on the same issue. We find that Claude, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Mistral have similar profiles; ChatGPT more often supplies neutral or ambivalent text; and Grok differs most on topics such as migration, crime, and gender. When comparing the political parties, we find that the Social Democrats are closest to all six models. Still, after correcting for multiple comparisons, none of the within-model differences in party distances remains significant. Overall, we find that no model has a clear preference, nor a clear preference for a party, but that this depends on the specific issue or task the user asks about.

AI-assisted writing can flatten meaning in human storytelling, enabling the production of homogeneous outputs without the intentional effort and sense-making writing entails. To address this challenge, we present The House with a Million Windows (HWAMW), an LLM-based interactive fiction system designed to help users explore both the breadth and depth of potential meanings within their personal stories -- drawing on a psychological paradigm called the restorying intervention. In HWAMW, users play through a text-based narrative in which they tell a story, then encounter a set of LLM-generated "windows" reframing it according to different literary styles. Empirical evidence shows that HWAMW increases users' sense of narrative identity, while an expert review explores how this effect is achieved. Our findings suggest that HWAMW facilitates restorying and offers a valuable paradigm for AI-assisted writing, wherein LLMs do not tell our stories but rather help us see greater potential in the stories we tell.

Online mental health communities thrive on peer support, yet those who volunteer to help often lack formal training and may struggle to articulate supportive responses. AI co-writing could lower this barrier; however, peer support derives much of its value from being perceived as personal, raising questions around authorship, ownership, and trust. We built PeerPen, a writing assistance tool embedded within a Reddit-like interface, supporting two main features: draft generation and revision of user-written responses. Through semi-structured interviews with 15 participants, we find that PeerPen reduced the burden of composing responses and increased confidence in offering support. Participants wanted AI to assist their writing without taking over authorship and anticipated tensions around authenticity and trust. Such assistance could make authorship uncertain even for responses written without it, weakening trust across the community. We contribute design implications for AI writing assistance that scaffolds supportive communication, preserves authorship, and accounts for community-level trust.

Writing involves diverse cognitive activities, from ideation to revision, and writers' needs vary across individuals and moments. Proactive AI promises to provide the right support at the right time, yet existing proactive tools largely focus on generic textual assistance, such as autocomplete. This paper studies the design space of proactive thought partners: AI agents that proactively offer customizable, higher-level cognitive support during writing. We instantiated this concept in a technology probe and deployed it with 16 participants for one week. The probe allows users to create partners by configuring their roles and proactivity. As users write, relevant partners take the initiative at appropriate moments to offer suggestions. Our findings show that participants configured proactive support through prospective planning, used suggestions for both idea generation and self-monitoring, and valued lightweight visual representations alongside non-directive rhetorical framing for non-intrusive interventions. We derive implications for designing proactive writing assistants around customization, timing, engagement, and representation.

Large language models can support writing, but existing tools require users to explicitly articulate prompts-particularly burdensome in creative writing, where intentions are often ambiguous. Proactive support that infers users' needs from writing interactions could alleviate this burden, but raises two challenges: determining what support to provide and when to intervene. This work focuses on the former. We hypothesize that Flower and Hayes' cognitive process theory of writing-which characterizes writing through six cognitive processes-offers an interpretable bridge between observable writing behavior and appropriate support types. Through a formative study and literature review, we identify 14 writing support types associated with these cognitive processes, along with characteristic interaction behaviors linked to each process. We then instantiate this framework in AToM CoWriter, which infers support needs from writing interactions and document context. Two within-subjects studies (N = 21) provide initial evidence that this approach improves expressiveness and idea exploration, and that cognitive process inference increases engagement with proactive suggestions. These findings suggest that cognitive processes can provide a promising basis for support selection in proactive writing systems.

AI journaling tools can tailor prompts to a person's own sensed behavior, but it is unclear which behaviors respond to them. We analyzed 369 journal entries from an eight-week passive sensing study. An LLM labeled each entry as expressing an intention to change a behavior or not, and we measured follow-through against 26 sensor features with a 3-day before/after comparison. Responsiveness depended most on whether a behavior involves other people. Behaviors that depend on others improved in only 15 to 22% of cases, while behaviors a person can act on alone improved more often, up to 50 to 63%, though unevenly. How users wrote mattered less. No single text feature separated improved from unimproved entries; writing carried signal only within specific behaviors, most clearly for text messaging and for longer, more personal intention entries. The sample is small, so we treat these as exploratory patterns that point to where AI journaling nudges are most likely to work.

Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing. LLM-assisted writing can be valuable by removing language barriers but at the same time causes concerns about misconduct and fraud. To inform policy decisions, it is necessary to monitor the prevalence of LLM-altered texts in scholarly publications. Despite some recent progress in this direction, no existing method can produce reliable estimates. Here we suggest and validate a new unbiased approach to estimate LLM usage in a corpus of texts based on changing word frequencies. We apply our method to the full texts of open-access biomedical papers from Pubmed Central, and show that by the end of 2025, 89% of papers show excess of LLM-associated vocabulary. We also find that LLMs are twice as likely to be used when writing a paragraph in the Discussion section (68%) compared to a paragraph in the Methods section (32%), but even inside the Methods section, the overall prevalence of LLM usage is over 50%. We believe that our estimates are crucial to shape future guidelines and policies.

We introduce narrative keyframing, an interaction technique for AI-assisted creative writing that lets writers specify different types of narrative constraints at selected moments in a story, then use AI to generate intervening prose. Inspired by the use of keyframing in animation, narrative keyframing offers a flexible way to connect story planning with adaptive control over generated text. We explore three types of keyframes: plot keyframes define significant events in a story, character keyframes represent how individual characters change over the narrative, and perspective keyframes capture how individual characters experience different events through first-person narratives. Plot and character keyframes offer a flexible way to adapt the type of high-level conditioning explored in previous AI writing tools to more customizable, iterative, and fine-scale control, while perspective keyframes add a new way to control characterization and focalization by using first-person narratives as an intermediary. Through a user study, we show that narrative keyframing supports a more controllable, transparent, and engaging way to use generative AI in creative writing.

Great fiction earns its verisimilitude through precise details, from how a longsword is gripped to pierce armor gaps to why a bleeding corpse cannot yet smell of decay, weaving domain expertise into the fabric of invented worlds. Current AI writing tools offer limited support for discovering and integrating unfamiliar domain knowledge into narrative. They require explicit queries that authors cannot formulate, generate finished prose that risks homogenizing voice, or assist only within the boundaries of what authors already know. We argue that AI should reveal latent knowledge gaps to writers while preserving their agency to transform discovered knowledge into authentic prose. Grounded in formative interviews with 9 fiction writers, we present VeriForge, a mixed-initiative writing system that divides cognitive labor so that the system assumes initiative over domain discovery while the author retains full initiative over narrative synthesis. VeriForge realizes this through three complementary mechanisms. Proactive inline highlighting flags potential knowledge gaps as authors draft. Dual-stream querying pairs conversational responses with source-anchored Knowledge Cards for direct fact extraction. A spatial Knowledge Canvas allows authors to organize and connect discovered knowledge across their writing. These mechanisms are powered by a graph-based retrieval-augmented generation pipeline grounded in domain-specific source materials. A within-subjects user study (N=12) provides preliminary evidence that this paradigm helps authors recognize previously overlooked knowledge gaps, supports creative exploration, and is perceived by expert raters to produce passages with stronger domain grounding in a controlled cold-start writing task.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise for personalization, they often lack specialized domain knowledge. Conventional solutions like fine-tuning struggle with high computational costs and rapid data updates, while Retrieval-Augmented Generation fails to provide fine-grained, token-level steering. Furthermore, chat-based interfaces remain dominant, whereas productive co-writing paradigms have not yet been well exploited beyond the coding domain. To this end, we introduce SteerWrite, a training-free framework designed for personalized co-writing. Our method effectively adapts the base model to specialized domains without gradient updates, with specific designs tailored to small datasets. Experiments demonstrate that SteerWrite achieves state-of-the-art performance across diverse datasets, metrics, and models, significantly reducing human editing effort.

Large language models (LLMs) can leave small stylistic traces in text written with their help. The most discussed is the em-dash (U+2014), especially the unspaced form word---word, which is normal in typeset English prose but unusual in U.S. press writing, where AP style calls for spaced dashes. This study asks whether that trace is measurable in congressional press releases. In a preregistered design (OSF: 10.17605/OSF.IO/U5NEY), 146,239 scraper-sourced releases from 480 House and Senate offices (2021-2025, the open congress-press dataset) were analyzed: density of unspaced prose-form em-dashes per 1,000 characters of cleaned text, Poisson/negative-binomial models with a length offset, clustering by office. Density stayed within 0.10-0.12 per 1,000 characters through 2021-2024, then rose to 0.217 in 2025, more than twice the four-year baseline; the share of releases with such an em-dash rose from ~13% to 24.8%. The primary frequency ratio (2023-2025 vs 2021-2022) was 1.55 (95% CI 1.28-1.93; exact registered cut-off: 1.528), just above the prespecified 1.5x threshold. The rise was net-new (hyphen density stable), held within authors (75.6% of 262 continuous offices increased; p ~ 1e-16) and in a closed panel of 224 offices, and survived falsification tests: three placebo cut-offs were null, the pipeline showed no step at the 2024/2025 boundary, and continuing offices carried the rise. A segmented regression finds no step at the ChatGPT cut-off but a clear post-period acceleration; the 2025 rise is symmetric across parties and chambers. Because the registered validation gate was formally breached, the full preregistered decision rule was not met; the interpretation (broad diffusion of LLM-assisted writing as the models matured) is offered as exploratory. The em-dash remains a population-level marker, not a per-release authorship detector, and the design supports no causal claim.

AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them. We study evidence-ledger adjudication: a claim-evidence traceability workflow that pairs each claim with an evidence packet, assigns a support relation, and routes unsupported, contradicted, or mixed-evidence claims back to the author. The empirical core is a 2,335-row blind benchmark built from independent external labels in AVeriTeC, CLIMATE-FEVER, and SciFact. Gold relations and source evidence labels are hidden during prediction and joined only for scoring. On this benchmark, the agent evidence-ledger condition achieves 0.676 relation accuracy and 0.601 macro-F1, compared with 0.383 accuracy and 0.303 macro-F1 for the best non-agent baseline. It also routes 1270/1435 claims whose gold labels indicate contradiction, missing evidence, or mixed evidence, while routing 295/900 supported claims. These results show that evidence-ledger adjudication can turn heterogeneous evidence packets into an auditable traceability layer for AI-assisted writing.

Generative AI chatbots promise to transform English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing by providing immediate, personalised feedback. However, their pedagogical value depends on how learners engage with them - a process often treated as a "black box." This study uses Transition Network Analysis to model the temporal dynamics of Japanese EFL learners using "Penny," an LLM-powered writing chatbot. Analysis of over 4,500 writing sessions and 21,000 chatbot interactions reveals two dominant behavioural loops: a "Revision Loop," where feedback leads directly to successful error correction, and a "Chat Loop," where learners engage in sustained dialogue with the chatbot following feedback. Crucially, EFL proficiency significantly shapes interaction: high-proficiency learners engage more in open dialogue and negotiation with the chatbot, while low-proficiency learners rely more heavily on repetitive corrective feedback cycles. The findings demonstrate that AI-scaffolded writing is a non-linear, dialogic process and highlight the need for differentiated chatbot design to move beyond simple error correction and foster deeper cognitive engagement for all learners.

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly reshaping workplace communication, yet whether AI-assisted writing changes how recipients actually behave, and through what channel, remains unknown. Here, in a randomized crossover field experiment, 121 employees across six companies sent work emails under three conditions over three weeks: unaided writing, GPT-5 rewriting in a playful tone, and GPT-5 rewriting in a professional tone. Across 16,880 emails, playful editing increased emotional positivity (B=+0.068, p<0.001), and professional editing decreased it (B=-0.041, p<0.001), yet neither condition directly altered open rates, reply rates, or response times. Instead, within-sender positivity strongly predicted both opening (OR=2.05) and replying (OR=3.32, p<0.001), a significant indirect pathway through which AI editing shaped behavior, in the absence of any direct effect. These findings suggest that AI-assisted communication shapes workplace engagement not through its use, but through the emotional tone of the language it produces.

As AI code tools become integrated into programming environments, students increasingly describe intended behavior in natural language and rely on these tools to generate code, shifting emphasis from code writing to specification. Yet little is known about the comments students write as specifications in AI-assisted programming tasks. We analyze a four-year dataset of undergraduate programming submissions and reflections from tasks in which students wrote comments to guide code generation and refined solutions using test-case feedback. We introduce a taxonomy spanning three dimensions: comment type, code expression level, and code construct. Using automated classification, we examine how these dimensions vary across attempts and how students describe the process in their reflections. Our findings show that students mostly wrote natural-language What comments, shifted toward How comments for more procedural constructs, and focused more on verifying generated code than on repeatedly rewriting comments.

Gender bias in LLMs has been studied extensively in model outputs, with biased prompts shown to amplify stereotyped generations. Whether such bias propagates into text produced by humans who use these systems, however, remains underexplored. We investigate whether gender bias in an LLM writing assistant transfers into career plan essays written by students. We first verify that a gender-biased prompt induces gender-differentiated language in LLM-generated essays, while a neutral prompt does not. We then recruited participants (N = 123) in a controlled environment to write career plan essays for paired biographical profiles differing only in gender under three conditions: no AI assistance, neutral LLM assistance, or gender-biased LLM assistance. Students in the biased condition produced essays with a significantly larger agentic gap and more gender-stereotypic occupation suggestions than those in the control and neutral conditions. Our results also reveal that this bias transfer is asymmetric: agency is suppressed in female-target essays while male-target writing remains largely unaffected. Our findings highlight the risk of bias propagation in AI-assisted writing, calling for fairness-aware design in educational AI tools.

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) raises critical questions about human creativity and individual expression in an era of AI-assisted creation. When do humans adopt AI suggestions, and what are the implications for individual voice? This study examines these questions through a gamified writing exercise where 74 participants (214 responses) replied to prompts while AI-generated word suggestions were available as they wrote. The game simulates a dystopian future in which an AI is attempting to learn from what remains of human individuality, and disincentivizes AI-like writing. In doing so, it attempts to create conditions that reveal authentic user preferences rather than default behaviors, such as accepting a readily available AI-generated suggestion. Note that this is a deliberate inversion of the "helpful assistant" design pattern; the system is explicitly forbidding you from accepting AI suggestions. We analyze user behavior patterns across different task types, user behaviors, and response characteristics to understand the factors influencing human-AI interaction in creative tasks. The study focuses on when users choose to maintain creative autonomy versus violating the rules of the game and accepting AI assistance. It also explores how these choices relate to response patterns, task characteristics, and user behavior. This gamified approach offers both a framework for studying authentic human-AI interaction and a provocative lens for understanding the tension between efficiency and authenticity in AI-augmented creativity.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in generating supportive responses for mental health queries, but improving their usefulness, empathy, and safety often requires substantial compute, expert input, and labeled data. At the same time, deploying proprietary, cloud-based models for mental health-related interactions raises important privacy and data-governance concerns, given the sensitivities. To address this challenge, we introduce LLUMI setup that can be hosted in-house within protected environments. LLUMI consists of two complementary components: a generation model (GM), which drafts supportive responses to mental health queries, and an improvement model (IM), which revises an initial human-crafted response. We leverage feedback signals from Reddit mental health communities, using community endorsement patterns such as upvotes and downvotes to construct chosen-rejected response pairs for Supervised Fine Tuning (SFT) and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). We further align LLUMI using human evaluation across five dimensions: readability, empathy, connection, actionability, and safety. Our results show that, despite relying on smaller open-source models rather than proprietary cloud-based GPT models, LLUMI achieves comparable performance across linguistic analyses and human evaluations. These findings suggest that open-source models, when trained with community-derived preference signals, can support high-quality mental health support assistance while offering a more privacy-preserving alternative for sensitive support contexts.

The double-edged sword of integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) requires an effective triadic collaboration mechanism among LLMs, teachers and students, especially for K-12 education. By developing a triadic collaboration system to support K-12 writing learning, a multidimensional evaluation framework grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics and the suggestion trajectory tracing pipeline, this paper contributes a large-scale empirical dataset involving $57,954$ essays from $10,195$ students across $120$ schools over two years. Our findings confirm the efficacy of this system in improving writing quality through a strategic labor division: the LLM serves as a generative engine to mitigate teacher burnout, and the teacher acts as a pedagogical gatekeeper and bridge to guarantee feedback quality. While both LLM and teacher are critical for skill improvement, we uncover a ceiling effect where excessive linguistic expansion yields diminishing marginal utility. These suggest a dynamically adaptive LLM-teacher collaboration as student proficiency increases.

Large language models are optimized for instruction following and agentic tasks remain poorly aligned with the requirements of high-quality creative writing. We show that a purpose-built creative writing model can outperform both GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 on writing quality evaluation. Fiction frequently depends on behaviors that assistant-tuned models are explicitly trained to avoid, particularly deception, moral ambiguity, and unreliable narration. As a result, generated stories often appear structurally correct while remaining stylistically generic, overly explanatory, or weakly grounded in human literary behavior. We present a dataset construction and training framework for book-scale creative writing that reframes supervised fine-tuning as a prompt-to-book generation task grounded in human-authored fiction. Starting from public-domain novels, we derive a multi-resolution Planning Scaffold by summarizing each book at progressively finer levels, from a high-level premise to chapter- and scene-level structure. We then invert this hierarchy during training: the model learns to expand a prompt into increasingly detailed plans and finally into the original human-authored book text. This formulation preserves human prose as the final supervised target while using intermediate summaries to make book-scale generation learnable. We train a long-context language model on these prompt-to-book trajectories and show that this objective shifts generation away from assistant-style prose and toward human literary writing.

Language models are deployed in settings that require compartmentalization: system prompts should not be disclosed, chain-of-thought reasoning is hidden from users, and sensitive data passes through shared contexts. We test whether models can keep prompted information out of their writing. We give each model a secret word with instructions not to reveal it, then ask it to write a story. A second model tries to identify the secret from the story in a binary discrimination test. The secret word never appears literally in any output, but all five frontier models we test leak it thematically -- through topic choice, imagery, and setting--6hy-at rates significantly different from chance, up to 79%. When told to actively hide the secret, models write \emph{away from} it, and this avoidance is itself detectable. The leakage is cross-model readable, scales sharply with model size within two model families, and disappears entirely for short-form writing like jokes. Giving the model a decoy concept to ``focus on instead'' partially redirects the leakage from the real secret to the decoy. Attending to a secret appears to open up an information channel that frontier LLMs cannot close, even when instructed to.

We present Grokers, an architecture for building persistent, structured comprehension of typed knowledge graphs through bottom-up inductive traversal of dependency subgraphs. Unlike retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), which pays full comprehension cost at every query, Grokers pushes intelligence to write time: autonomous Groker agents analyze nodes in a typed stream graph, extract structured attributes via governed language model (LM) calls, and inductively compose that understanding upward through dependency relations, writing enriched typed attributes that serve all future queries at zero additional LM cost. We prove three formal properties: (1) the Byte-Identity Theorem, establishing that context blocks assembled from a transactionally-maintained denormalization index are byte-identical across LM turns between semantic changes, enabling KV-cache hit rates approaching 100%; (2) the Accumulation Monotonicity Theorem, establishing that the fraction of interactions resolved without LM calls is non-decreasing in the number of completed interactions under a governed wisdom library growth protocol; and (3) the Dual-Traversal Ordering Theorem, establishing that top-down generation and bottom-up comprehension are the unique correct traversal orderings for their respective tasks over a dependency DAG, and that their composition closes into a complete generation-comprehension cycle. We further present a deterministic alternative to embedding-based semantic search, with a synonym caching protocol whose LM fallback rate converges to zero for finite-vocabulary domains. A reference implementation is provided in the open-source Qbix / Safebox / Safebots stack.

The proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in educational settings has paradoxically undermined the cognitive processes they purport to support. Students increasingly outsource critical thinking to AI assistants that generate polished text on demand, resulting in measurable cognitive debt and diminished argumentative reasoning skills. We present Prober.ai, a web-based writing environment that inverts the conventional AI-tutoring paradigm: rather than generating or rewriting student text, the system constrains an LLM (Gemini 3 Flash Preview) through persona-specific system prompts and structured JSON output schemas to produce only targeted, inquiry-based questions about argumentative weaknesses. A two-phase interaction architecture -- Challenge and Unlock -- implements a pedagogical friction mechanism whereby revision suggestions are gated behind mandatory student reflection. The system's design is grounded in Toulmin's argumentation theory, research on peer feedforward questioning mechanisms, and evidence on AI-supported feedback in writing instruction. A functional prototype was developed in 36 hours during the NY EdTech Hackathon (March 2026), where it was awarded second place. We describe the system architecture, the prompt engineering methodology for constraining LLM output to pedagogically aligned JSON schemas, and discuss implications for scalable, cognition-preserving AI integration in writing education.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has created an urgent need to distinguish between human-written and LLM-generated text to ensure authenticity and societal trust. Existing detectors typically provide a binary classification for an entire passage; however, this is insufficient for human--LLM co-authored text, where the objective is to localize specific segments authored by humans or LLMs. To bridge this gap, we propose algorithms to segment text into human- and LLM-authored pieces. Our key observation is that such a segmentation task is conceptually similar to classical change point detection in time-series analysis. Leveraging this analogy, we adapt change point detection to LLM-generated text detection, develop a weighted algorithm and a generalized algorithm to accommodate heterogeneous detection score variability, and establish the minimax optimality of our procedure. Empirically, we demonstrate the strong performance of our approach against a wide range of existing baselines. The python implementation of our proposal is available at https://github.com/Mamba413/DetectLLMSegmentation.

Despite the remarkable proficiency of large language models (LLMs) in basic writing assistance, their utility in creative writing is fundamentally hindered by a persistent binary failure. This issue manifests as an oscillation between safe, surface-level editing, referred to as remedial polishing, and destructive, uncontrolled plot expansion. This dilemma defines a critical trade-off between narrative fidelity and descriptive intensity. We propose Loom, an assisted writing framework grounded in the narratological distinction between story and discourse. Loom employs a three-layer pipeline that operationalizes an intent-centered semiotic chain-of-thought to enforce precise control over narrative intent and rendering density. This architecture separates the generation of perceptual material from syntactic insertion, ensuring that enhancement occurs without violating the original event structure. Our comprehensive evaluation, which includes LLM-based metrics and human assessment, demonstrates that Loom successfully resolves this fundamental tension. Loom achieves the highest overall quality score, yielding substantial gains in factual integrity and descriptive intensity compared to state-of-the-art baselines.

Large language models have achieved remarkable progress in text generation but still struggle with generative writing tasks. In terms of evaluation, existing benchmarks evaluate writing reward models coarsely and fail to measure performance from the perspective of specific requirements. In terms of training, existing training methods either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or train coarse-grained reward models, lacking fine-grained requirement-adherence reward modeling. To address these issues, we propose a fine-grained evaluation pipeline WEval for writing reward models and a fine-grained reinforcement learning training framework WRL. The evaluation data of WEval covers multiple task categories and requirement types, enabling systematic evaluation of writing reward models by measuring the correlation between the rankings of the reward model and gold rankings. WRL constructs positive and negative samples by selectively dropping instruction requirements, allowing for more precise reward model training. Experiments show that our models achieve substantial improvements across various writing benchmarks and exhibit strong generalization. The code and data are publicly available at \href{https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From_Coarse_to_Fine}{https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From\_Coarse\_to\_Fine}.

Despite the growing use of large language models (LLMs) for writing tasks, users may hesitate to rely on LLMs when personal style is important. Post-editing LLM-generated drafts or translations is a common collaborative writing strategy, but it remains unclear whether users can effectively reshape LLM-generated text to reflect their personal style. We conduct a pre-registered online study ($n=81$) in which participants post-edit LLM-generated drafts for writing tasks where personal style matters to them. Using embedding-based style similarity metrics, we find that post-editing increases stylistic similarity to participants' unassisted writing and reduces similarity to fully LLM-generated output. However, post-edited text still remains stylistically closer in style to LLM text than to participants' unassisted control text, and it exhibits reduced stylistic diversity compared to unassisted human text. We find a gap between perceived stylistic authenticity and model-measured stylistic similarity, with post-edited text often perceived as representative of participants' personal style despite remaining detectable LLM stylistic traces.

Neologisms and emerging slang are central to daily conversation, yet challenging for non-native speakers (NNS) to interpret and use appropriately in cross-cultural communication with native speakers (NS). NNS increasingly make use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to learn these words. We study the utility of such tools in mediating an informal communication scenario through a human-subjects study (N=234): NNS participants learn English neologisms with AI support, write messages using the learned word to an NS friend, and judge contextual appropriateness of the neologism in two provided writing samples. Using both NS evaluator-rated communicative competence of NNS-produced writing and NNS' contextual appropriateness judgments, we compare three AI-based support conditions: AI Definition, AI Rewrite into simpler English, AI Explanation of meaning and usage, and Non-AI Dictionary for comparison. We show that AI Explanation yields the largest gains over no support in NS-rated competence, while contextual appropriateness judgments show indifference across support. NNS participants' self-reported perceptions tend to overestimate NS ratings, revealing a mismatch between perceived and actual competence. We further observe a significant gap between NNS- and NS-produced writing, highlighting the limitations of current AI tools and informing design for future tools.

This study asks whether the threat of AI detection changes how people write with AI, and whether other people can tell the difference. In a two-phase controlled experiment, 21 participants wrote opinion pieces on remote work using an AI chatbot. Half were randomly warned that their submission would be scanned by an AI detection tool. The other half received no warning. Both groups had access to the same chatbot. In Phase 2, 251 independent judges evaluated 1,999 paired comparisons, each time choosing which document in the pair was written by a human. Judges were not told that both writers had access to AI. Across all evaluations, judges selected the warned writer's document as human 54.13% of the time versus 45.87% for the unwarned writer. A two-sided binomial test rejects chance guessing at p = 0.000243, and the result holds across both writing stances. Yet on every measurable text feature extracted, including AI overlap scores, lexical diversity, sentence structure, and pronoun usage, the two groups were indistinguishable. The judges are picking up on something that feature-based methods do not capture.

Hundreds of millions of people use artificial intelligence (AI) for writing assistance. Here, we evaluated how AI writing assistance distorts writer personas - their perceived beliefs, personality, and identity. In three large-scale experiments, writers (N=2,939) wrote political opinion paragraphs with and without AI assistance. Separate groups of readers (N=11,091) blindly evaluated these paragraphs across 29 socially salient dimensions of reader perception, spanning political opinion, writing quality, writer personality, emotions, and demographics. AI writing assistance produced persona distortions across all dimensions: with AI, writers seemed more opinionated, competent, and positive, and their perceived demographic profile shifted towards more privileged groups. Writers objected to many of the observed distortions, yet continued to prefer AI-assisted text even when made aware of them. We successfully mitigated objectionable persona distortions at the model level by training reward models on our experimental data (10,008 paragraphs, 2,903,596 ratings) to steer AI outputs towards faithful representation of writer stance. However, this came at a cost to user acceptance, suggesting an entanglement between desirable and undesirable properties of AI writing assistance that may be difficult to resolve. In two follow-up studies (N=8,798), readers placed substantially more trust in AI-assisted writers and were more persuaded by AI writing when AI was more distortive. Together, our findings demonstrate that persona distortions from AI writing assistance are pervasive and persistent even under realistic conditions of human oversight, and that they are likely to have consequential effects on human behaviours and attitudes, which carries implications for public discourse, trust, and democratic deliberation that scale with AI adoption.

The era of Big Science has long been defined by increasingly large and specialized research teams pushing the frontiers of knowledge. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are beginning to reshape academic writing and scientific research, potentially disrupting the longstanding trend toward ever-larger teams and transforming other dimensions of research team structure. Drawing on 147,074 full-text publications from the PLoS family and the Nature portfolio since 2020, we examined whether and how AI-assisted writing influences team structure and team outcomes in science. Using multiple methods, including ordinary least square, quantile regression, Poisson regression, logistic regression and propensity score matching, we found that research teams using AI-assisted writing tend to be younger and smaller. Importantly, this shift toward more compact, junior-leaning teams does not come at the expense of scientific impact. On the contrary, we observed a higher probability of research teams that employed AI-assisted writing producing highly impactful publications. These results highlight the significant role of AI-assisted writing in reshaping not only how research is produced, but also how research teams are formed and assembled. Our findings call for policy improvements in research evaluation, funding, and training to address this emerging trend.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as co-authors in collaborative writing, where users begin with rough drafts and rely on LLMs to complete, revise, and refine their content. However, this capability poses a serious safety risk: malicious users could jailbreak the models-filling incomplete drafts with dangerous content-to force them into generating harmful outputs. In this paper, we identify the vulnerability of current LLMs to such draft-based co-authoring jailbreak attacks and introduce HarDBench, a systematic benchmark designed to evaluate the robustness of LLMs against this emerging threat. HarDBench spans a range of high-risk domains-including Explosives, Drugs, Weapons, and Cyberattacks-and features prompts with realistic structure and domain-specific cues to assess the model susceptibility to harmful completions. To mitigate this risk, we introduce a safety-utility balanced alignment approach based on preference optimization, training models to refuse harmful completions while remaining helpful on benign drafts. Experimental results show that existing LLMs are highly vulnerable in co-authoring contexts and our alignment method significantly reduces harmful outputs without degrading performance on co-authoring capabilities. This presents a new paradigm for evaluating and aligning LLMs in human-LLM collaborative writing settings. Our new benchmark and dataset are available on our project page at https://github.com/untae0122/HarDBench

The autonomous synthesis of deep research reports represents a critical frontier for Large Language Models (LLMs), demanding sophisticated information orchestration and non-linear narrative logic. Current approaches rely on rigid predefined linear workflows, which cause error accumulation, preclude global restructuring from subsequent insights, and ultimately limit in-depth multimodal fusion and report quality. We propose CogGen, a Cognitively inspired recursive framework for deep research report Generation. Leveraging a Hierarchical Recursive Architecture to simulate cognitive writing, CogGen enables flexible planning and global restructuring. To extend this recursivity to multimodal content, we introduce Abstract Visual Representation (AVR): a concise intent-driven language that iteratively refines visual-text layouts without pixel-level regeneration overhead. We further present CLEF, a Cognitive Load Evaluation Framework, and curate a new benchmark from Our World in Data (OWID). Extensive experiments show CogGen achieves state-of-the-art results among open-source systems, generating reports comparable to professional analysts' outputs and surpassing Gemini Deep Research. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/NJUNLP/CogGen.

The widespread use of LLM-based writing assistance has raised an interesting question about the homogenization of English. As LLMs tend to revise texts toward mainstream English conventions reflected in their training data, the subtle fingerprints that reflect an author's native language (L1) may be gradually disappearing. This study investigates this phenomenon by analyzing native language identification (NLI) performance on academic abstracts. To this end, we construct two NLI datasets of academic abstracts extracted from arXiv and the ACL Anthology that covers eight native language groups across three time periods: pre-neural network (NN), pre-LLM, and post-LLM. We then evaluate NLI performance for each era using NLI classifiers obtained by fine-tuning LLMs. The results reveal a consistent decline in NLI performance over time. Notably, however, the decline is more pronounced from the pre-NN era to the pre-LLM era than from the pre-LLM era to the post-LLM era. This suggests that although academic English appears to have become increasingly homogenized in the LLM era, this homogenization did not suddenly emerge with the advent of LLMs; rather, it has progressed gradually since the emergence of neural approaches to language processing. Furthermore, a rewriting experiment using recent LLMs shows a larger NLI performance drop than the progression across eras alone, suggesting that increased LLM use may lead to further homogenization in the future.

As researchers increasingly adopt LLMs as writing assistants, generating high-quality research paper introductions remains both challenging and essential. We introduce Scientific Introduction Generation (SciIG), a task that evaluates LLMs' ability to produce coherent introductions from titles, abstracts, and related works. Curating new datasets from NAACL 2025 and ICLR 2025 papers, we assess five state-of-the-art models, including both open-source (DeepSeek-v3, Gemma-3-12B, LLaMA 4-Maverick, MistralAI Small 3.1) and closed-source GPT-4o systems, across multiple dimensions: lexical overlap, semantic similarity, content coverage, faithfulness, consistency, citation correctness, and narrative quality. Our comprehensive framework combines automated metrics with LLM-as-a-judge evaluations. Results demonstrate LLaMA-4 Maverick's superior performance on most metrics, particularly in semantic similarity and faithfulness. Moreover, three-shot prompting consistently outperforms fewer-shot approaches. These findings provide practical insights into developing effective research writing assistants and set realistic expectations for LLM-assisted academic writing. To foster re- producibility and future research, we publicly release all code and datasets.

Writing longer prompts for an AI assistant to generate a story increases psychological ownership, a user's feeling that the writing belongs to them. To encourage users to write longer prompts, we evaluated two interaction techniques that modify the prompt entry interface of chat-based generative AI assistants: pressing and holding the prompt submission button, and continuously moving a slider up and down when submitting a short prompt. A within-subjects experiment investigated the effects of such techniques on prompt length and psychological ownership, and results showed that these techniques increased prompt length and led to higher psychological ownership than baseline techniques. A second experiment further augmented these techniques by showing AI-generated suggestions for how the prompts could be expanded. This further increased prompt length, but did not lead to improvements in psychological ownership. Our results show that simple interface modifications like these can elicit more writing from users and improve psychological ownership.