Writing as a testbed for open ended agents
Open accessAbstract
Open-ended tasks are particularly challenging for LLMs due to the vast solution space, demanding both expansive exploration and adaptable strategies, especially when success lacks a clear, objective definition. Writing, with its vast solution space and subjective evaluation criteria, provides a compelling testbed for studying such problems. In this paper, we investigate the potential of LLMs to act as collaborative co-writers, capable of suggesting and implementing text improvements autonomously. We analyse three prominent LLMs - Gemini 1.5 Pro, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and GPT-4o - focusing on how their action diversity, human alignment, and iterative improvement capabilities impact overall performance. This work establishes a framework for benchmarking autonomous writing agents and, more broadly, highlights fundamental challenges and potential solutions for building systems capable of excelling in diverse open-ended domains.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 prior open-ended task studies, a creativity task's evaluation was either subjective human judgement or relied on dispersion metrics that are hard to interpret as practical reasoning diagnostics.
“The other was a creativity task, where evaluation was either subjective human judgement or relying on dispersion metrics that, while concrete, are hard to interpret as practical reasoning diagnostics[22].”
From Illusions of reflection: open-ended task reveals systematic failures in Large Language Models' reflective reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as [22]
The introduction (p. 2) says the writing-agent study combines quantitative diversity metrics with human evaluation, and §9.1 (p. 17) cautions that high diversity can reflect surface-level suggestions rather than goal-directed exploration. This supports the concern about interpreting dispersion as evidence of practical reasoning, but the paper studies writing assistance and uses the two evaluation approaches together, not as alternatives in a separate creativity task. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- G. Anderson, A. Verma, I. Dillig, and S. Chaudhuri. Neurosymbolic reinforcement learning with formally verified exploration. Advances in neural information processing systems , 33:6172-6183, 2020.
- T. Chakrabarty, P. Laban, and C.-S. Wu. Can ai writing be salvaged? mitigating idiosyncrasies and improving human-ai alignment in the writing process through edits, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2409.14509 .
- M. Črepinšek, S.-H. Liu, and M. Mernik. Exploration and exploitation in evolutionary algorithms: A survey. ACM computing surveys ( CSUR) , 45(3):1-33, 2013.
- P. S. Dhillon, S. Molaei, J. Li, M. Golub, S. Zheng, and L. P. Robert. Shaping human-ai collaboration: Varied scaffolding levels in co-writing with language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '24, New York, NY, USA, 2024. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642134. URL https: //doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642134 . · DOI · Paper page
- W. Du, Z. M. Kim, V. Raheja, D. Kumar, and D. Kang. Read, revise, repeat: A system demonstration for human-in-the-loop iterative text revision. In T.-H. K. Huang, V. Raheja, D. Kang, J. J. Y. Chung, D. Gissin, M. Lee, and K. I. Gero, editors, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2022) , pages 96-108, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022.
- A. Guo, S. Sathyanarayanan, L. Wang, J. Heer, and A. Zhang. From pen to prompt: How creative writers integrate ai into their writing practice, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03137 . · arXiv
- J. Huang, X. Chen, S. Mishra, H. S. Zheng, A. W. Yu, X. Song, and D. Zhou. Large language models cannot self-correct reasoning yet. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01798 , 2023. · arXiv
- F. Huot, R. K. Amplayo, J. Palomaki, A. S. Jakobovits, E. Clark, and M. Lapata. Agents' room: Narrative generation through multi-step collaboration, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.02603 .
- D. Ippolito, A. Yuan, A. Coenen, and S. Burnam. Creative writing with an ai-powered writing assistant: Perspectives from professional writers, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05030 . · arXiv
- R. Kamoi, Y. Zhang, N. Zhang, J. Han, and R. Zhang. When can llms actually correct their own mistakes? a critical survey of self-correction of llms. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , 12:1417-1440, 2024.
- R. Kirk, I. Mediratta, C. Nalmpantis, J. Luketina, E. Hambro, E. Grefenstette, and R. Raileanu. Understanding the effects of rlhf on llm generalisation and diversity, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2310.06452 .
- A. Kuznetsova, P. B. Brockhoff, R. H. Christensen, et al. lmertest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of statistical software , 82(13):1-26, 2017.
- J. Lee, Z. Dai, X. Ren, B. Chen, D. Cer, J. R. Cole, K. Hui, M. Boratko, R. Kapadia, W. Ding, et al. Gecko: Versatile text embeddings distilled from large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.20327 , 2024a. · arXiv
- M. Lee, P. Liang, and Q. Yang. Coauthor: Designing a human-ai collaborative writing dataset for exploring language model capabilities. In Proceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '22, New York, NY, USA, 2022. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450391573. doi: 10.1145/3491102.3502030. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3491102.3502030 . · DOI · Paper page
- M. Lee, K. I. Gero, J. J. Y. Chung, S. B. Shum, V. Raheja, H. Shen, S. Venugopalan, T. Wambsganss, D. Zhou, E. A. Alghamdi, T. August, A. Bhat, M. Z. Choksi, S. Dutta, J. L. Guo, M. N. Hoque, Y. Kim, S. Knight, S. P. Neshaei, A. Shibani, D. Shrivastava, L. Shroff, A. Sergeyuk, J. Stark, S. Sterman, S. Wang, A. Bosselut, D. Buschek, J. C. Chang, S. Chen, M. Kreminski, J. Park, R. Pea, E. H. R. Rho, Z. Shen, and P. Siangliulue. A design space for intelligent and interactive writing assistants. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '24, New York, NY, USA, 2024b. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9798400703300. doi: 10.1145/3613904.3642697. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642697 . · DOI · Paper page
- P. Mirowski, K. W. Mathewson, J. Pittman, and R. Evans. Co-writing screenplays and theatre scripts with language models: Evaluation by industry professionals. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems , pages 1-34, 2023.
- V. Padmakumar and H. He. Does writing with language models reduce content diversity?, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05196 . · arXiv
- A. Panickssery, S. Bowman, and S. Feng. Llm evaluators recognize and favor their own generations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 37:68772-68802, 2025.
- S. Y. Park and S. W. Lee. Why 'why'? the importance of communicating rationales for edits in collaborative writing. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , CHI '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394215. doi: 10.1145/3544548.3581345. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581345 . · DOI
- V. Raheja, D. Kumar, R. Koo, and D. Kang. Coedit: Text editing by task-specific instruction tuning, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.09857 . · arXiv
- T. Schick, J. Dwivedi-Yu, Z. Jiang, F. Petroni, P. Lewis, G. Izacard, Q. You, C. Nalmpantis, E. Grave, and S. Riedel. Peer: A collaborative language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.11663 , 2022. · arXiv
- M. Sharma, M. Tong, T. Korbak, D. Duvenaud, A. Askell, S. R. Bowman, N. Cheng, E. Durmus, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, S. R. Johnston, et al. Towards understanding sycophancy in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.13548 , 2023. · arXiv
- C. Si, D. Yang, and T. Hashimoto. Can llms generate novel research ideas? a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.04109 , 2024a. · arXiv
- C. Si, D. Yang, and T. Hashimoto. Can llms generate novel research ideas? a large-scale human study with 100+ nlp researchers, 2024b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04109 . · arXiv
- Z. Tao, T.-E. Lin, X. Chen, H. Li, Y. Wu, Y. Li, Z. Jin, F. Huang, D. Tao, and J. Zhou. A survey on self-evolution of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14387 , 2024. · arXiv
- L. Wang, C. Ma, X. Feng, Z. Zhang, H. Yang, J. Zhang, Z. Chen, J. Tang, X. Chen, Y. Lin, W. X. Zhao, Z. Wei, and J. Wen. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science , 18(6), Mar. 2024. ISSN 2095-2236. doi: 10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11704-024-40231-1 . · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Weatherhead, S., Salim, F., & Belbasis, A. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18254
“The other was a creativity task, where evaluation was either subjective human judgement or relying on dispersion metrics that, while concrete, are hard to interpret as practical reasoning diagnostics[22].”
- Authors
- Gooding, S., Lopez-Rivilla, L., & Grefenstette, E.
- ORCID
- Grefenstette, Edward
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.19711
- OpenAlex
- W6891932481
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- open-ended tasks, large language models, human alignment, iterative improvement, LLM comparison
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
