Cited by 63Design Education and PracticeData Visualization and AnalyticsInnovative Human-Technology Interaction

Metaphorian: Leveraging Large Language Models to Support Extended Metaphor Creation for Science Writing

Open access
Kim, Jeongyeon, Suh, Sangho, Chilton, Lydia B, Xia, Haijun·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference

Abstract

Science writers commonly use extended metaphors to communicate unfamiliar concepts in a more accessible way to a wider audience. However, creating metaphors for science writing is challenging even for professional writers; according to our formative study (n=6), finding inspiration and extending metaphors with coherent structures were critical yet significantly challenging tasks for them. We contribute Metaphorian, a system that supports science writers with the creation of scientific metaphors by facilitating the search, extension, and iterative revision of metaphors. Metaphorian uses a large language model-based workflow inspired by the heuristic rules revealed from a study with six professional writers. A user study (n=16) revealed that Metaphorian significantly enhances satisfaction, confidence, and inspiration in metaphor writing without decreasing writers’ sense of agency. We discuss design implications for creativity support for figurative writing in science.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3563657.3595996

Cites

60 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Other domains including HCI, organization and business management, and cognitive science have explored the impact of LLMs on creativity.

    “In contrast to software engineering, other domains including Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), organization and business management, and cognitive science have explored the impact of LLMs on creativity.”

    From The Impact of Generative AI on Creativity in Software Development: A Research Agenda (2025) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Introduction and Section 4 describe an HCI study of an LLM-based tool for creative metaphor writing, so the paper supports HCI as an example. The passages do not address research in organization and business management or cognitive science, which are also attributed to the source in the citing sentence. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Researchers in HCI have produced studies characterizing user values, social dynamics, and professional contexts that influence ownership preferences and attitudes toward AI assistance.

    “Researchers in HCI have worked extensively to investigate these dimensions, producing studies characterizing user values, social dynamics, and professional contexts [9,39,53,63,77,105] that influence ownership preferences and how they shape users' attitudes toward AI assistance.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Keiga Abe, Kayo Sakamoto, and Masanori Nakagawa. 2006. A computational model of the metaphor generation process. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Vol. 28.
  2. Tolga Bolukbasi, Kai-Wei Chang, James Y Zou, Venkatesh Saligrama, and Adam T Kalai. 2016. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016).
  3. George Lakof and Mark Johnson. 2008. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
  4. Balder Onarheim and Michael Mose Biskjaer. 2015. Balancing constraints and the sweet spot as coming topics for creativity research. Creativity in design: Understanding, capturing, supporting 1 (2015), 1-18.
  5. Alec Radford, Jefrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog 1, 8 (2019), 9.
  6. Gerard Steen. 2010. A method for linguistic metaphor identifcation: From MIP to MIPVU. Vol. 14. John Benjamins Publishing.
  7. Peter Turney, Yair Neuman, Dan Assaf, and Yohai Cohen. 2011. Literal and metaphorical sense identifcation through concrete and abstract context. In Pro- ceedings of the 2011 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pro- cessing. 680-690.
  8. Tony Veale and Yanfen Hao. 2007. Comprehending and generating apt metaphors: a web-driven, case-based approach to fgurative language. In AAAI, Vol. 2007. 1471-1476.
  9. Paul Werth. 1994. Extended metaphor-A text-world account. Language and literature 3, 2 (1994), 79-103.
  10. Zhilin Yang, Zihang Dai, Yiming Yang, Jaime Carbonell, Russ R Salakhutdinov, and Quoc V Le. 2019. Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019).
  11. Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models. In 27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 841-852. https://doi.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3490099. 3511105 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Zihao Zhao, Eric Wallace, Shi Feng, Dan Klein, and Sameer Singh. 2021. Calibrate before use: Improving few-shot performance of language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 12697-12706.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, J., Suh, S., Chilton, L. B., & Xia, H.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-07-10
Pages
115-135
OpenAlex
W4383682897
Cited by
61
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 1
FWCI
53.92
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Keywords
extended metaphor, scientific writing, large language models, creativity support, figurative writing, heuristic rules, writer agency, science communication

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