CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Usability and User Interface DesignInnovative Human-Technology InteractionAssistive Technology in Communication and Mobility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 238 of the 240 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants

Open access
Lee, Mina, Gero, Katy Ilonka, Chung, John Joon Young, Shum, Simon Buckingham, Raheja, Vipul, Shen, Hua, Venugopalan, Subhashini, Wambsganss, Thiemo, Zhou, David, Alghamdi, Emad A., August, Tal, Bhat, Avinash, Choksi, Madiha Zahrah, Dutta, Senjuti, Guo, Jin L.C., Hoque, Md Naimul, Kim, Yewon, Knight, Simon, Neshaei, Seyed Parsa, Shibani, Antonette, Shrivastava, Disha, Shroff, Lila, Sergeyuk, Agnia, Stark, Jessi, Sterman, Sarah, Wang, Sitong, Bosselut, Antoine, Buschek, Daniel, Chang, Joseph Chee, Chen, Sherol, Kreminski, Max, Park, Joonsuk, Pea, Roy, Rho, Eugenia Ha Rim, Shen, Zejiang, Siangliulue, Pao·2024·Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/3613904.3642697
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions and codes by systematically reviewing 115 papers, while leveraging the expertise of researchers in various disciplines. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the design of new writing assistants.

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 · 10.1145/3613904.3642697

Cites

238 of 240 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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

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?

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

  • BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space

    Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., & Dean, J. (2013) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1301.3781 · Cited by 26,568 · cited 1×

    “To highlight a few notable trends, we see audience is under-represented compared to the other task dimensions, suggesting future work may want to more explicitly consider who is the audience of a piece of writing. overall, as well as relative to other technology dimensions, suggesting that there…”

  • Language Models are Few-Shot Learners

    Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation

    Papineni, K., Roukos, S., Ward, T., & Zhu, W.-J. (2001) · Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL '02 · doi:10.3115/1073083.1073135 · Cited by 21,344 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach

    Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Stoyanov, V. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.11692 · Cited by 16,515 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer

    Raffel, C., Shazeer, N., Roberts, A., Lee, K., Narang, S., Matena, M., Zhou, Y., Li, W., & Liu, P. J. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.10683 · Cited by 10,929 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

    Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2001.08361 · Cited by 9,550 · cited 1×

    “…for a task Availability User’s expectation of the writing assistant being at hand when one needs or wants to use it Privacy User’s concerns about how their data is handled by the writing assistant Transparency User’s understanding of the writing assistant’s mechanism, capabilities, and limitations”

  • A unified architecture for natural language processing: deep neural networks with multitask learning

    Collobert, R., & Weston, J. (2008) · Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning - ICML '08 · doi:10.1145/1390156.1390177 · Cited by 5,058 · cited 1×

    “To highlight a few notable trends, we see audience is under-represented compared to the other task dimensions, suggesting future work may want to more explicitly consider who is the audience of a piece of writing. overall, as well as relative to other technology dimensions, suggesting that there…”

  • Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., & Zhou, D. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 · Cited by 4,263

    Self-citation

Show all 129 references

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  2. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  3. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  4. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.14165 (2020). · arXiv
  5. Daniel Buschek, Martin Zürn, and Malin Eiband. 2021. The Impact of Multiple Parallel Phrase Suggestions on Email Input and Composition Behaviour of Native and Non-Native English Writers. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI).
  6. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  7. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  8. 10.3115/v1 · DOI
  9. 10.3115/v1 · DOI
  10. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  11. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  12. Susan D’Agostino. 2023. ChatGPT Advice Academics Can Use Now. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2023/01/12/academic-experts-offer-advice-chatgpt Accessed: Jan 26, 2024.
  13. 10.3115/v1 · DOI
  14. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  15. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  16. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  17. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  18. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  19. Michael Gamon. 2010. Using Mostly Native Data to Correct Errors in Learners’ Writing. In Human Language Technologies: The 2010 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Los Angeles, California, 163–171. https://aclanthology.org/N10-1019
  20. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  21. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  22. Tobias Moritz Guggenberger, Frederik Möller, Tim Haarhaus, Inan Gür, and Boris Otto. 2020. Ecosystem Types in Information Systems. In Twenty-Eighth European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS2020). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2020_rp/45
  23. Harry Halpin, Johanna D. Moore, and Judy Robertson. 2004. Automatic Analysis of Plot for Story Rewriting. In Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, 127–133. https://aclanthology.org/W04-3217
  24. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  25. J.R. Hayes. 1996. A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, C.M. Levy and S. Randall (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 6–44.
  26. Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeffrey Dean. 2015. Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network. In NIPS Deep Learning and Representation Learning Workshop.
  27. Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR).
  28. Chung-chi Huang, Ping-che Yang, Keh-jiann Chen, and Jason S. Chang. 2012. TransAhead: A Computer-Assisted Translation and Writing Tool. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. Association for Computational Linguistics, Montréal, Canada, 352–356. https://aclanthology.org/N12-1036
  29. Chung-chi Huang, Ping-che Yang, Mei-hua Chen, Hung-ting Hsieh, Ting-hui Kao, and Jason S. Chang. 2012. TransAhead: A Writing Assistant for CAT and CALL. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, 16–19. https://aclanthology.org/E12-2004
  30. Justin Hutchens. 2023. The Language of Deception: Weaponizing Next Generation AI. John Wiley & Sons.
  31. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  32. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  33. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  34. Juho Kim. 2022. Interaction-Centric AI (NeurIPS 2022 Keynote). https://slideslive.com/38996064/interactioncentric-ai Accessed: Jan 26, 2024.
  35. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  36. Tomi Kinnunen, Henri Leisma, Monika Machunik, Tuomo Kakkonen, and Jean-Luc LeBrun. 2012. SWAN - Scientific Writing AssistaNt. A Tool for Helping Scholars to Write Reader-Friendly Manuscripts. In Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, 20–24. https://aclanthology.org/E12-2005
  37. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  38. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  39. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  40. Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Alexander Cosgrove, Christopher D Manning, Christopher Re, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew Arad Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue WANG, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri S. Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Andrew Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2023. Holistic Evaluation of Language Models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023). https://openreview.net/forum?id=iO4LZibEqW Featured Certification, Expert Certification.
  41. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  42. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  43. Charles A MacArthur. 2006. The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. Handbook of writing research (2006), 248–262.
  44. 10.1080/07370024.1991.9667168 · DOI
  45. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  46. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  47. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  48. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  49. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  50. Writers Guild of America. 2023. What We Won. https://www.wgacontract2023.org/the-campaign/what-we-won Accessed: Dec. 12, 2023.
  51. David R Olson. 2002. What writing does to the mind. Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (2002), 153–166.
  52. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  53. Vishakh Padmakumar and He He. 2024. Does Writing with Language Models Reduce Content Diversity?. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=Feiz5HtCD0
  54. 10.3102/0091732X014001277 · DOI
  55. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  56. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  57. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  58. Denise Schmandt-Besserat. 1992. Before writing, vol. I: from counting to cuneiform. Vol. 1. University of Texas press.
  59. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  60. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  61. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  62. 10.3115/v1 · DOI
  63. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  64. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  65. Elizabeth Sulzby, William H Teale, and George Kamberelis. 1989. Emergent writing in the classroom: Home and school connections. Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write (1989), 63–79.
  66. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  67. Ilya Sutskever Oriol Vinyals and Quoc V. Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS). 3104–3112.
  68. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  69. Rohan Taori and Tatsunori Hashimoto. 2023. Data feedback loops: Model-driven amplification of dataset biases. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 33883–33920.
  70. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models. arXiv (2023).
  71. Eric L Trist. 1981. The evolution of socio-technical systems. Vol. 2. Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre Toronto.
  72. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  73. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  74. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  75. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  76. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  77. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  78. Florian Weber, Thiemo Wambsganss, Dominic Rüttimann, and Matthias Söllner. 2021. Pedagogical agents for interactive learning: A taxonomy of conversational agents in education. In Forty-Second International Conference on Information Systems. Austin, Texas.
  79. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  80. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  81. Chin yew Lin and Marina Rey. 2004. Looking for a Few Good Metrics: ROUGE and its Evaluation. In NTCIR Workshop.
  82. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  83. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  84. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  85. 10.18653/v1 · DOI
  86. 10.18653/v1 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–144 of 144

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lee, M., Gero, K. I., Chung, J. J. Y., Shum, S. B., Raheja, V., Shen, H., Venugopalan, S., Wambsganss, T., Zhou, D., Alghamdi, E. A., August, T., Bhat, A., Choksi, M. Z., Dutta, S., Guo, J. L. C., Hoque, M. N., Kim, Y., Knight, S., Neshaei, S. P., Shibani, A., Shrivastava, D., Shroff, L., Sergeyuk, A., Stark, J., Sterman, S., Wang, S., Bosselut, A., Buschek, D., Chang, J. C., Chen, S., Kreminski, M., Park, J., Pea, R., Rho, E. H. R., Shen, Z., & Siangliulue, P.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Midjourney, United States
  • University of Technology Sydney (AU)
  • Grammarly, United States
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Bern University of Applied Sciences (CH)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • King Abdulaziz University (SA)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • McGill University (CA)
  • Cornell Tech (US)
  • University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KR)
  • École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • JetBrains Research, Serbia and Montenegro
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • University of Bayreuth (DE)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
  • Department of Computer Science, University of Richmond, United States
  • Virginia Tech (US)
  • MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (US)
  • B12, United States
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-05-11
Pages
1-35
DOI
10.1145/3613904.3642697
OpenAlex
W4393118307
Cited by
136
References
129
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 18
FWCI
43.82
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ARBOR - Bern University of Applied Sciences Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
University of Technology Sydney
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
Keywords
writing assistants, design space, interactive writing, writing support systems, task dimensions, technology dimension

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