CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108Usability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology InteractionData Visualization and Analytics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping

Open access
Zhang, Zheng, Gao, Jie, Dhaliwal, Ranjodh Singh, Li, Toby Jia-Jun·2023·Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
DOI 10.1145/3586183.3606800
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In argumentative writing, writers must brainstorm hierarchical writing goals, ensure the persuasiveness of their arguments, and revise and organize their plans through drafting. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made interactive text generation through a chat interface (e.g., ChatGPT) possible. However, this approach often neglects implicit writing context and user intent, lacks support for user control and autonomy, and provides limited assistance for sensemaking and revising writing plans. To address these challenges, we introduce VISAR, an AI-enabled writing assistant system designed to help writers brainstorm and revise hierarchical goals within their writing context, organize argument structures through synchronized text editing and visual programming, and enhance persuasiveness with argumentation spark recommendations. VISAR allows users to explore, experiment with, and validate their writing plans using automatic draft prototyping. A controlled lab study confirmed the usability and effectiveness of VISAR in facilitating the argumentative writing planning process.

Overview

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 · 10.1145/3586183.3606800

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Nader Akoury, Shufan Wang, Josh Whiting, Stephen Hood, Nanyun Peng, and Mohit Iyyer. 2020. Storium: A dataset and evaluation platform for machine-in-the-loop story generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01717 (2020). · arXiv
  2. Rosa Maria Ballardini, Kan He, and Teemu Roos. 2019. AI-generated content: authorship and inventorship in the age of artificial intelligence. Online Distribution of Content in the EU (2019), 117–135.
  3. J Anthony Blair. 2011. Groundwork in the theory of argumentation: Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Vol. 21. Springer Science & Business Media.
  4. Wayne C Booth, Gregory G Colomb, and Joseph M Williams. 2003. The craft of research. University of Chicago press.
  5. Ali Borji. 2023. A categorical archive of chatgpt failures. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03494 (2023). · arXiv
  6. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.
  7. Tuhin Chakrabarty, Vishakh Padmakumar, and He He. 2022. Help me write a poem: Instruction Tuning as a Vehicle for Collaborative Poetry Writing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13669 (2022). · arXiv
  8. Xinyun Chen, Maxwell Lin, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Teaching large language models to self-debug. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05128 (2023). · arXiv
  9. Andy Coenen, Luke Davis, Daphne Ippolito, Emily Reif, and Ann Yuan. 2021. Wordcraft: a human-ai collaborative editor for story writing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07430 (2021). · arXiv
  10. Ralph P Ferretti and William E Lewis. 2018. Argumentative writing. Best practices in writing instruction 135 (2018).
  11. 10.2307/356600 · DOI · Paper page
  12. John T. Gage. 2006. The shape of reason: Argumentative writing in college. Pearson Education.
  13. Jie Gao, Yuchen Guo, Gionnieve Lim, Tianqin Zhang, Zheng Zhang, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Simon Tangi Perrault. 2023. CollabCoder: A GPT-Powered Workflow for Collaborative Qualitative Analysis. arxiv:2304.07366 [cs.HC] · arXiv
  14. David Hitchcock and Bart Verheij. 2006. Arguing on the Toulmin model. Vol. 10. Springer.
  15. Edwin L Hutchins, James D Hollan, and Donald A Norman. 1985. Direct manipulation interfaces. Human–computer interaction 1, 4 (1985), 311–338.
  16. Daphne Ippolito, Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, and Sehmon Burnam. 2022. Creative Writing with an AI-Powered Writing Assistant: Perspectives from Professional Writers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.05030 (2022). · arXiv
  17. Philip N Johnson-Laird. 1999. Deductive reasoning. Annual review of psychology 50, 1 (1999), 109–135.
  18. Jean Kaddour, Joshua Harris, Maximilian Mozes, Herbie Bradley, Roberta Raileanu, and Robert McHardy. 2023. Challenges and Applications of Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10169 (2023). · arXiv
  19. J Richard Landis and Gary G Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. biometrics (1977), 159–174.
  20. Jonathan Lazar Jinjuan Heidi Feng and Harry Hochheiser. 2017. Research methods in human-computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann.
  21. Anne Marguerite McAlister Dennis M Lee Katherine M Ehlert Rachel Louis Kajfez Courtney June Faber and Marian S Kennedy. 2017. Qualitative coding: An approach to assess inter-rater reliability. In 2017 ASEE annual conference & exposition.
  22. Bettina Pedemonte. 2007. How can the relationship between argumentation and proof be analysed?Educational studies in mathematics 66, 1 (2007), 23–41.
  23. Mark A Runco and Garrett J Jaeger. 2012. The standard definition of creativity. Creativity research journal 24, 1 (2012), 92–96.
  24. Abulhair Saparov and He He. 2022. Language models are greedy reasoners: A systematic formal analysis of chain-of-thought. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01240 (2022). · arXiv
  25. Baruch B Schwarz, Lauren B Resnick, and Michael J Baker. 2017. Dialogue, argumentation and education: History, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Noah Shinn, Beck Labash, and Ashwin Gopinath. 2023. Reflexion: an autonomous agent with dynamic memory and self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366 (2023). · arXiv
  27. Nikhil Singh, Guillermo Bernal, Daria Savchenko, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. Where to hide a stolen elephant: Leaps in creative writing with multimodal machine intelligence. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2022).
  28. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V Le, Ed H Chi, Denny Zhou, 2022. Challenging BIG-Bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09261 (2022). · arXiv
  29. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Chain of thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.11903 (2022). · arXiv
  30. Daijin Yang, Yanpeng Zhou, Zhiyuan Zhang, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Ray LC. 2022. AI as an Active Writer: Interaction strategies with generated text in human-AI collaborative fiction writing. In Joint Proceedings of the ACM IUI Workshops, Vol. 10.
  31. Kevin Yang, Nanyun Peng, Yuandong Tian, and Dan Klein. 2022. Re3: Generating longer stories with recursive reprompting and revision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.06774 (2022). · arXiv
  32. Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10601 (2023). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 108

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Z., Gao, J., Dhaliwal, R. S., & Li, T. J.-J.
Affiliations
University of Notre Dame (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
Publisher
ACM
Published
2023-10-29
Pages
1-30
DOI
10.1145/3586183.3606800
OpenAlex
W4385438855
Cited by
108
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 3
FWCI
25.06
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor, 366 d)
Locations
  • ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
NSF (National Science Foundation) (CCF-2211428)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
argumentative writing, writing assistants, large language models, visual programming, writing planning, text editing, user autonomy, sensemaking

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