Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2304.07810

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

Zheng Zhang·Jie Gao·Ranjodh Singh Dhaliwal·Toby Jia-Jun Li
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.HCcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Zheng Zhang, Jie Gao, Ranjodh Singh Dhaliwal, Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2023-07-27. VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606800

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Demonstrably Informed Consent in Privacy Policy Flows: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment

Privacy policies govern how personal data is collected, used, and shared. Yet, in most privacy-policy consent flows, agreement is operationalized as a single click at the end of a long, opaque policy document. Recent privacy-law scholarship has argued for a standard of demonstrably informed consent. That is, the party drafting and designing privacy-policy consent mechanisms must generate reliable evidence that a person demonstrates comprehension of the consequential terms to which they agree. To this end, we study pedagogical friction as a design framing: minimal interventions embedded within a privacy-policy consent flow that aim to support demonstrated comprehension while keeping burden on the user low. In a randomized experiment, we tested pedagogical friction for demonstrably informed consent in the context of a privacy policy for an edtech app for young children. We recruited 293 parents of kids ages 3-8 to review the app's privacy policy under one of six conditions that varied presentation format and pacing, then complete a six-question comprehension quiz. Three conditions offered a second policy review and quiz retake for participants who did not pass this quiz on their first attempt. We find that the slide-based condition (G3) achieved the highest first-attempt threshold attainment (>=80%) (41.7%), followed by the paced, sectioned condition (G4) (30.6%). In the retake conditions, 64.9% of participants who completed a second attempt improved their score. Notably, in conditions that did not gate consent on demonstrated comprehension, 97.3% of participants who scored below the threshold still chose to consent, suggesting that ungated consent flows can record agreement without demonstrated comprehension. Our results suggest that pedagogical friction can strengthen the evidentiary basis of consent and clarify what it costs in time and burden.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Cyber Exodus: Burnout Symptoms, Exit Intention, and Peer Response in Online Cybersecurity Communities

Security practitioners burn out at high rates, and the resulting attrition is itself a security problem. This workforce is hard to study: security operations centers are closed to outside researchers, studies that reach practitioners recruit through employers, and those who have disengaged most may have the least reason to answer an employer's survey. The same practitioners discuss their working conditions openly in online communities. We adapt the Burnout Assessment Tool, a validated clinical instrument, into a text annotation scheme and apply it to 354,861 posts and 296,442 replies from five online communities of cybersecurity practitioners. Checked against two trained coders on 100 posts, the annotation reaches a macro F1 of 0.75 across the four symptoms and 0.98 for detecting any burnout signal. We find that the four symptoms point to different problems at work, not to the same problem at different levels of severity. Exhaustion appears in almost any complaint about staffing or workload. Mental distance, a loss of belief that the work is worthwhile, is the only symptom unrelated to operational problems, and among posts with a single symptom it is accompanied by a stated intention to leave roughly twice as often as any other. Peer responses show the opposite pattern. When a poster says they are considering leaving, the mix of replies shifts toward career advice, but this shift is smallest for mental distance. The symptom most strongly associated with leaving is thus the one peers adjust to least, and a single burnout score obscures both patterns.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Value Faces: Surfacing How Self-Presentation Shifts Across Relationships

People present different aspects of themselves across relationships. Computational work has captured such variation in communication style. But this variation also extends to which principles people foreground or background in a particular relationship--i.e., in the values they express and how they balance them. We conceptualize these relationship-specific expressions of values as demonstrated values. To make demonstrated values visible, we introduce Value Faces, a system that analyzes a person's existing chat histories from their everyday messaging platforms using Schwartz's ten basic human values and produces separate value profiles for their different relationships. In a mixed-methods study(N=18), we find that the resulting value profiles distinguished participants' relational contexts with twice the odds of guessing, while system-inferred differences across relationships aligned with participants' perceptions of those differences. Participants used these profiles to articulate previously implicit differences in how they presented themselves, connect them to roles and changes over time, and reconsider their self-assessments.

cs.HC↗