Say Anything: Using Textual Case-Based Reasoning to Enable Open-Domain Interactive Storytelling
Abstract
We describe Say Anything, a new interactive storytelling system that collaboratively writes textual narratives with human users. Unlike previous attempts, this interactive storytelling system places no restrictions on the content or direction of the user’s contribution to the emerging storyline. In response to these contributions, the computer continues the storyline with narration that is both coherent and entertaining. This capacity for open-domain interactive storytelling is enabled by an extremely large repository of nonfiction personal stories, which is used as a knowledge base in a case-based reasoning architecture. In this article, we describe the three main components of our case-based reasoning approach: a million-item corpus of personal stories mined from internet weblogs, a case retrieval strategy that is optimized for narrative coherence, and an adaptation strategy that ensures that repurposed sentences from the case base are appropriate for the user’s emerging fiction. We describe a series of evaluations of the system’s ability to produce coherent and entertaining stories, and we compare these narratives with single-author stories posted to internet weblogs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the Academic context, support for planning processes is typically intended to help users connect and structure their own ideas to accomplish complex tasks.
“Support for planning processes are typically intended to help users connect and structure their own ideas to accomplish complex tasks [103,126].”
From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [126]
In the Creative context, support for reviewing features a mix of quantitative and qualitative feedback, with a focus on the AI evaluating text and providing suggestions rather than revising it directly.
“Support for reviewing features a mix of quantitative and qualitative feedback, with a focus on the AI evaluating text and providing suggestions rather than revising it directly [20,126].”
From Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process (2025) · cites this paper as [126]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
TaleBrush: Sketching Stories with Generative Pretrained Language Models
Chung, J. J. Y., Kim, W., Yoo, K. M., Lee, H., Adar, E., & Chang, M. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3501819 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Draxler, F., Werner, A., Lehmann, F., Hoppe, M., Schmidt, A., Buschek, D., & Welsch, R. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3637875 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Biermann, O. C., Ma, N. F., & Yoon, D. (2022) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3532106.3533506 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Creative Help: A Story Writing Assistant
Roemmele, M., & Gordon, A. S. (2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-27036-4_8 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Self-citationWriting Stories with Help from Recurrent Neural Networks
Roemmele, M. (2016) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.9810 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Co-Writing with AI, on Human Terms: Aligning Research with User Demands Across the Writing Process
Reza, M., Thomas-Mitchell, J., Dushniku, P., Laundry, N., Williams, J. J., & Kuzminykh, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3757566 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
“Pre-transformers [128] systems like Creative Help [106] and Say Anything [124] utilized case-based reasoning and story repositories to generate context-aware sentence suggestions.”
Machine-in-the-Loop Rewriting for Creative Image Captioning
Padmakumar, V., & He, H. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.42 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Towards Authoring Open-Ended Behaviors for Narrative Puzzle Games with Large Language Model Support
Ngaw, B., Jena, G., Sedoc, J., & Normoyle, A. (2024) · Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games · doi:10.1145/3649921.3656975 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Swanson, R., & Gordon, A. S.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- University of Southern California (US)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems
- Published
- 2012-09
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1-35
- ISSN
- 2160-6455 (ISSN-L)
- 2160-6463
- OpenAlex
- W2128116572
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5
- FWCI
- 6.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Army
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence in Games
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- interactive storytelling, case-based reasoning, personal narrative, blogs, case retrieval, narrative coherence, story adaptation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review