Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Prototypical Human-AI Collaboration Behaviors from LLM-Assisted Writing in the Wild

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.16023 v3 pith:AB6MXKIA submitted 2025-05-21 cs.CL cs.HC

Prototypical Human-AI Collaboration Behaviors from LLM-Assisted Writing in the Wild

classification cs.CL cs.HC
keywords usersbehaviorspathswritingcollaborationintentsllmsprototypical
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) are used in complex writing workflows, users engage in multi-turn interactions to steer generations to better fit their needs. Rather than passively accepting output, users actively refine, explore, and co-construct text. We conduct a large-scale analysis of this collaborative behavior for users engaged in writing tasks in the wild with two popular AI assistants, Bing Copilot and WildChat. Our analysis goes beyond simple task classification or satisfaction estimation common in prior work and instead characterizes how users interact with LLMs through the course of a session. We identify prototypical behaviors in how users interact with LLMs in prompts following their original request. We refer to these as Prototypical Human-AI Collaboration Behaviors (PATHs) and find that a small group of PATHs explain a majority of the variation seen in user-LLM interaction. These PATHs span users revising intents, exploring texts, posing questions, adjusting style or injecting new content. Next, we find statistically significant correlations between specific writing intents and PATHs, revealing how users' intents shape their collaboration behaviors. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings on LLM alignment.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. From Planning to Revision: How AI Writing Support at Different Stages Alters Ownership

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AI support during drafting decreases writing ownership more than during planning due to greater AI text and idea contributions, while improving essay quality.

  2. Componentization: Decomposing Monolithic LLM Responses into Manipulable Semantic Units

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0

    Generative model outputs can be decomposed into typed, linkable components that users edit, toggle, and regenerate before recomposition, as implemented in the MAODchat prototype.

  3. From Planning to Revision: How AI Writing Support at Different Stages Alters Ownership

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    AI writing support reduces ownership most at drafting and least at planning, tracking how much text and ideas the AI contributes, while more AI help raises essay quality.