Readable AI output can leave an evaluability gap: even when the source is shown, an overall-quality judgment may not reflect what an output preserves. We investigated how source-text condition and output rendering relate to perceived translation quality, and how output and system appraisals relate to trust and stated disclosure willingness in a plain-text interface. A focal 2 * 2 comparison (N=306) using TransLingo examined simple generated narratives and complex literary-philosophical prose alongside LLM-generated readability-oriented outputs and researcher-revised fidelity-oriented outputs. A descriptive stimulus audit indicated greater source retention in fidelity-oriented outputs in both source-text conditions. Factorial analyses showed a significant rendering-by-source-text-condition interaction in perceived quality. Participants rated fidelity-oriented outputs higher than readability-oriented outputs for the simple narratives, whereas no reliable rendering difference emerged for the complex prose. A corresponding source-condition-dependent pattern was observed for perceived intelligence, agency-oriented anthropomorphic attribution, and task-performance trust. A separate theory-ordered appraisal-structure SEM characterized concurrent associations among perceived quality, perceived intelligence, agency-oriented anthropomorphic attribution, task-performance trust, and stated disclosure willingness across six domains, with task-performance trust as the proximal correlate of stated willingness. The observed rating pattern distinguishes source access from source evaluability: for the complex stimuli, displaying the source did not ensure that one overall-quality rating reflected differences in retained content. It also separates support for evaluating translation output from data-handling support for decisions about what personal text to entrust to a system.
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.
In large-scale text analysis tasks, pre-trained language models are often used to embed text corpora for downstream analysis. However, such models may struggle to capture domain-specific semantics and adapting them typically requires large amounts of labeled data and technical expertise to implement training pipelines. Recent approaches have demonstrated how visual interactions in document projections can capture human feedback as training signals for model tuning. However, these methods operate on document-level feedback, which requires users to open and assess individual documents in order to provide effective feedback. In this paper, we propose KeySI, an interaction framework that enables feature-level feedback through keyword-based concept specification. Users specify feedback by organizing extracted keywords into groups representing concepts, which KeySI translates into document-level supervision for subsequent tuning. By operating on keywords as the primary interaction medium, KeySI reduces the need for manual document inspection and labeling and lowers the barrier to adapting embedding models. We present a prototype implementation that, given a corpus, curates representative keywords, visualizes keywords and document embeddings via dimensionality reduction, allows interactive specification of keyword groups, and supports iterative refinement through system feedback. We evaluate KeySI through a user study, usage scenarios, and quantitative experiments demonstrating its effectiveness in capturing user intent and improving embedding alignment.
LLMs are increasingly used for conversational tutoring, but effective tutoring requires more than correct answers. Tutors must choose when to scaffold reasoning, hint, give feedback, explain, or invite reflection. Existing prompting and training methods improve pedagogical alignment, but lack reliable inference-time control over pedagogical strategies. We introduce PIVOT, an activation-steering framework that learns preference-based intervention vectors online for frozen LLM tutors. PIVOT uses a seven-category tutor-move taxonomy and a generate-label-optimise loop, where a human-validated LLM judge identifies target and confusable non-target moves to construct preference pairs for multi-layer residual-stream steering. Across held-out and out-of-domain tutoring data, PIVOT controls tutor moves while preserving relevance and fluency, and its directions can be scaled, transferred, and composed at inference time. In a user study with 30 teachers, 73.3% of participants preferred steered conversations over neutral baseline interactions using the same prompt, and rated the controls as clear, usable, and pedagogically meaningful.
AI tools like ChatGPT and DeepSeek, powered by Large Language Models (LLMs), allow users to obtain instant and effective content responses simply by typing requests, such as ``plan a three-day Vienna trip'', ``solve the attached mathematical problem'', ``draft an email to inquire review progress'', etc., which are also known as LLM prompts. Crafting clear and well-structured prompts leads to more appropriate LLM feedback, which effectively bridges human-LLM interaction. Although prompting appears accessible to non-expert users, precisely organizing effective prompts is a highly systematic and skillful process, presenting potential challenges even for experienced users. This survey explores the principles, taxonomy, and organization of prompts from a user-centered perspective. Differing from the existing surveys that primarily focus on technical principles and application scenarios of LLMs, this paper provides actionable guidelines for formulating effective LLM prompts across diverse real-world tasks and specifically contributes by: 1) developing an intuitive evaluation strategy for prompt efficacy, 2) providing prompting workflow demonstrations on representative applications, and 3) maintaining a dynamically updated open-source project to ensure the core takeaways remain up-to-date. These measures lower the threshold for users to correctly understand and craft prompts that align with evolving application scenarios. This work will be maintained as a living GitHub project \href{https://github.com/Yunfan-Zhang/TAI_Guideline-Table}{\textcolor{blue}{here}}.
Jiarui Liu, Terry Jingchen Zhang, Ryan Faulkner +17cs.CL
Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use. Our code is publicly available under the AGPL-3.0 license at https://github.com/jiarui-liu/overleaf
Fleur V. J. van Tellingen, Gautam Ranka, Dora Žugčić +4cs.CL
As MT quality increases, interest in enhanced post-editing features such as QE-derived error highlights is growing, yet evidence for their usefulness remains limited. In this work, we explore the usefulness of LLM-derived error highlights and correction suggestions based on automatic post-editing (APE). We conduct a study where professional translators (En-Nl) post-edit translations using APE error highlights and correction suggestions and compare productivity, quality and user experience to regular PE and PE with QE-derived highlights. While no condition yielded productivity or quality gains compared to regular PE, APE highlights were better received than QE-derived highlights, and correction suggestions improved overall user experience.
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.