pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.00361 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-01 · 💻 cs.HC · cs.AI

Attribution Gradients: Incrementally Unfolding Citations for Critical Examination of Attributed AI Answers

Hita Kambhamettu , Alyssa Hwang , Philippe Laban , Andrew Head This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 11:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.HC cs.AI
keywords attribution gradientsAI answer enginescitationscritical readinginformation scentuser studysecond-degree citations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Attribution gradients consolidate citation evidence and allow in-place unfolding of second-degree sources to support deeper critical reading of AI answers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

AI answer engines generate responses with inline citations, but checking the sources is time-consuming and links give little preview of the evidence. Attribution gradients address this by gathering evidence amounts, supporting and contradictory excerpts, source links, and explanations in one location, plus the option to expand to second-degree citations without leaving the page. A lab study found that this approach led to deeper engagement and readers extracting more from the sources in a critical reading task, outperforming standard citation and document QA designs.

Core claim

Attribution gradients bring evidence amounts, supporting/contradictory excerpts, links to source, contextual explanation into one place and enable the ability to unravel second-degree citations in place. In a lab study we demonstrate usage of the full gradient in a critical reading task and its support for deep engagement that increased the depth of what readers took away from the sources versus a standard citation and document QA design.

What carries the argument

Attribution gradients, a technique that consolidates scent and information prey in place for citations while supporting incremental unraveling of second-degree sources.

Load-bearing premise

The specific critical reading task and participant pool in the lab study are representative of how typical users would engage with attributed AI answers in everyday settings.

What would settle it

A field observation or study showing whether typical users actually unfold attribution gradients during real use of AI answers and gain measurably greater depth from sources than with standard citations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.00361 by Alyssa Hwang, Andrew Head, Hita Kambhamettu, Philippe Laban.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Attribution gradients. Users begin with a claim in the generated answer (1) and see color-coded pieces of evidence (2): black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Inspecting the first sentence of an AI-generated answer. When the users clicks the button to open evidence for the sentence, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Exploring different types of evidence for the claim. When the user clicks on a claim, the interface displays pieces of evidence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Viewing passages in context. When a user clicks to jump to the source for a piece of evidence, it scrolls to that evidence in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Unraveling citations. If a piece of second-degree evidence cites another source for its evidence, users can sometimes unravel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Collecting excerpts. Shown is a set of evidence excerpts a user might collect when reviewing an answer about whether [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Implementation. To provide our instantiation of attribution gradients, attributed AI responses need to be augmented with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Compilation of quantitative results from the conducted in-lab study. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

AI answer engines are a relatively new kind of information search tool: rather than returning a ranked list of documents, they generate an answer to a search question with inline citations to sources. But reading the cited sources is costly, and citation links themselves offer little guidance about what evidence they contain. We present attribution gradients, a technique to boost the informativeness of citations by consolidating scent and information prey in place. Its first feature is bringing evidence amounts, supporting/contradictory excerpts, links to source, contextual explanation into one place. Its second feature is the ability to unravel second-degree citations in place. In a lab study we demonstrate usage of the full gradient in a critical reading task and its support for deep engagement that increased the depth of what readers took away from the sources versus a standard citation and document QA design.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces attribution gradients as a technique to increase the informativeness of inline citations in AI-generated answers by consolidating evidence amounts, supporting/contradictory excerpts, source links, and contextual explanations in one place, while also supporting incremental unfolding of second-degree citations. It reports results from a lab study in which participants using the full attribution gradient in a critical reading task showed deeper engagement and greater depth of takeaways from the cited sources relative to a standard citation baseline and a document QA design.

Significance. If the empirical findings are robust, the work addresses a practical problem in human-AI information interaction by giving users more actionable cues for source evaluation. The paper receives credit for including a controlled lab study that directly tests the technique against two comparison conditions and reports a measurable difference in takeaway depth.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the full gradient 'increased the depth of what readers took away from the sources' rests on a lab study, yet the manuscript provides no details on sample size, statistical tests, task design, or controls for confounds. This omission prevents evaluation of whether the data actually support the central empirical claim.
  2. [Lab study / Evaluation] Lab study description: the central claim depends on the observed benefit generalizing beyond the specific critical-reading task and participant pool. Everyday use of attributed AI answers typically involves quick verification rather than instructed, high-investment analysis; the manuscript does not report field data, ecological-validity measures, or deployment observations that would address this gap.
minor comments (1)
  1. The new term 'attribution gradient' is introduced without an early diagram or concise operational definition; adding one would improve readability for readers encountering the concept for the first time.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, indicating where we agree and will revise the paper accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the full gradient 'increased the depth of what readers took away from the sources' rests on a lab study, yet the manuscript provides no details on sample size, statistical tests, task design, or controls for confounds. This omission prevents evaluation of whether the data actually support the central empirical claim.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract is too concise and should include key empirical details to allow readers to evaluate the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will expand the abstract to report the sample size, the statistical tests used, a brief description of the critical-reading task, and mention of controls for confounds. The full methodological details already appear in the Evaluation section; the abstract revision will make the high-level claim more transparent while remaining within length limits. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Lab study / Evaluation] Lab study description: the central claim depends on the observed benefit generalizing beyond the specific critical-reading task and participant pool. Everyday use of attributed AI answers typically involves quick verification rather than instructed, high-investment analysis; the manuscript does not report field data, ecological-validity measures, or deployment observations that would address this gap.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the lab study was conducted in a controlled, high-investment critical-reading setting and therefore does not directly demonstrate generalization to quick-verification scenarios common in everyday use. The lab design was chosen to enable precise measurement of takeaway depth against two baselines. In the revision we will add a Limitations and Future Work subsection that explicitly discusses the scope of the current task, the distinction between instructed analysis and typical use, and the absence of field or deployment data. We will also outline planned follow-up studies to examine ecological validity. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: central claim is empirical user study result

full rationale

The paper introduces attribution gradients as a UI technique for unfolding citations and evaluates it via a lab study showing increased depth of takeaway in a critical reading task compared to standard citations or document QA. No derivation chain, equations, fitted parameters, or first-principles predictions exist that could reduce to inputs by construction. The load-bearing evidence is the user study outcome itself, which is independent of any self-referential logic or prior self-citations. This matches the default expectation of no significant circularity for an empirical HCI paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The work introduces a new interface concept and relies on standard assumptions from HCI about the value of consolidated information for user engagement; no free parameters or invented physical entities are involved.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Users will engage more deeply with sources when evidence details and excerpts are consolidated in one view rather than requiring separate navigation.
    This premise underpins the design of attribution gradients and the interpretation of the lab study results.
invented entities (1)
  • Attribution gradient no independent evidence
    purpose: To consolidate scent, evidence amounts, excerpts, and second-degree citation unfolding for AI answer citations.
    Newly proposed interface mechanism introduced to address limitations of standard citation links.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5675 in / 1236 out tokens · 84693 ms · 2026-05-18T11:31:21.580009+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. From Binary Groundedness to Support Relations: Towards a Reader-Centred Taxonomy for Comprehension of AI Output

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Binary groundedness judgments in AI evaluations should be replaced by a reader-centered taxonomy of support relations that distinguishes syntactic and interpretive moves between generated statements and source documents.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Akari Asai, Jacqueline He, Rulin Shao, Weijia Shi, Amanpreet Singh, Joseph Chee Chang, Kyle Lo, Luca Soldaini, Sergey Feldman, Mike D’arcy, et al

    work page

  2. [2]

    Openscholar: Synthesizing scientific literature with retrieval-augmented lms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14199(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    https://asta.allen.ai/

    asta.allen.ai.asta.allen.ai. https://asta.allen.ai/

    work page

  4. [4]

    Tal August, Lucy Lu Wang, Jonathan Bragg, Marti A Hearst, Andrew Head, and Kyle Lo. 2023. Paper plain: Making medical research papers approachable to healthcare consumers with natural language processing.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction30, 5 (2023), 1–38

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Hearst, Andrew Head, and Kyle Lo

    Tal August, Lucy Lu Wang, Jonathan Bragg, Marti A. Hearst, Andrew Head, and Kyle Lo. 2023. Paper Plain: Making Medical Research Papers Approachable to Healthcare Consumers with Natural Language Processing.ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction(2023). To appear

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Catarina G Belem, Pouya Pezeskhpour, Hayate Iso, Seiji Maekawa, Nikita Bhutani, and Estevam Hruschka. 2024. From Single to Multi: How LLMs Hallucinate in Multi-Document Summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13961(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Joseph Chee Chang, Amy X Zhang, Jonathan Bragg, Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Doug Downey, and Daniel S Weld. 2023. Citesee: Augmenting citations in scientific papers with persistent and personalized historical context. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    https://chatdoc.com/

    chatdoc.com.chatdoc.com. https://chatdoc.com/

    work page

  9. [9]

    Zijian Ding, Michelle Brachman, Joel Chan, and Werner Geyer. 2025. Structuring GenAI-assisted Hypotheses Exploration with an Interactive Shared Representation. InCompanion Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 167–171

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    https://elicit.com/

    elicit.com.elicit.com. https://elicit.com/

    work page

  11. [11]

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. InProceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 6491–6501

    work page 2024

  12. [12]

    KJ Feng, Kevin Pu, Matt Latzke, Tal August, Pao Siangliulue, Jonathan Bragg, Daniel S Weld, Amy X Zhang, and Joseph Chee Chang. 2024. Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.10999(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Raymond Fok, Joseph Chee Chang, Tal August, Amy X Zhang, and Daniel S Weld. 2023. Qlarify: Bridging scholarly abstracts and papers with recursively expandable summaries.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.075816, 3 (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Raymond Fok, Hita Kambhamettu, Luca Soldaini, Jonathan Bragg, Kyle Lo, Marti Hearst, Andrew Head, and Daniel S Weld. 2023. Scim: Intelligent skimming support for scientific papers. InProceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 476–490

    work page 2023

  15. [15]

    Raymond Fok, Nedim Lipka, Tong Sun, and Alexa F Siu. 2024. Marco: Supporting Business Document Workflows via Collection-Centric Information Foraging with Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Haofen Wang, and Haofen Wang. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.109972 (2023)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Chelse Swoopes, Ziwei Gu, Jonathan K Kummerfeld, and Elena L Glassman. 2024. Supporting sensemaking of large language model outputs at scale. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–21

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    Dirk Groeneveld, Iz Beltagy, Evan Walsh, Akshita Bhagia, Rodney Kinney, Oyvind Tafjord, Ananya Jha, Hamish Ivison, Ian Magnusson, Yizhong Wang, Shane Arora, David Atkinson, Russell Authur, Khyathi Chandu, Arman Cohan, Jennifer Dumas, Yanai Elazar, Yuling Gu, Jack Hessel, Tushar Khot, William Merrill, Jacob Morrison, Niklas Muennighoff, Aakanksha Naik, Cry...

    work page 2024

  19. [19]

    Carol Mullins Hayes. 2023. Generative artificial intelligence and copyright: Both sides of the black box.A vailable at SSRN 4517799(2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Dongyeop Kang, Raymond Fok, Sam Skjonsberg, Daniel S Weld, and Marti A Hearst. 2021. Augmenting scientific papers with just-in-time, position-sensitive definitions of terms and symbols. InProceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–18

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    Weld, and Marti A

    Andrew Head, Kyle Lo, Dongyeop Kang, Raymond Fok, Sam Skjonsberg, Daniel S. Weld, and Marti A. Hearst. 2021. Augmenting Scientific Papers with Just-in-Time, Position-Sensitive Definitions of Terms and Symbols. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. Paper 413. 19 Your last name et al

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Jeffrey Heer, Matthew Conlen, Vishal Devireddy, Tu Nguyen, and Joshua Horowitz. 2023. Living papers: A language toolkit for augmented scholarly communication. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–13

    work page 2023

  23. [23]

    Lucas Torroba Hennigen, Shannon Shen, Aniruddha Nrusimha, Bernhard Gapp, David Sontag, and Yoon Kim. 2023. Towards verifiable text generation with symbolic references.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09188(2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Md Naimul Hoque, Tasfia Mashiat, Bhavya Ghai, Cecilia D Shelton, Fanny Chevalier, Kari Kraus, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2024. The HaLLMark Effect: Supporting Provenance and Transparent Use of Large Language Models in Writing with Interactive Visualization. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–15

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Chao-Chun Hsu, Erin Bransom, Jenna Sparks, Bailey Kuehl, Chenhao Tan, David Wadden, Lucy Lu Wang, and Aakanksha Naik. 2024. Chime: Llm-assisted hierarchical organization of scientific studies for literature review support.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16148(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, et al. 2025. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions.ACM Transactions on Information Systems43, 2 (2025), 1–55

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Hita Kambhamettu, Jamie Flores, and Andrew Head. 2024. Traceable Text: Deepening Reading of AI-Generated Summaries with Phrase-Level Provenance Links.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.13099(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Hyeonsu Kang, Joseph Chee Chang, Yongsung Kim, and Aniket Kittur. 2022. Threddy: An interactive system for personalized thread-based exploration and organization of scientific literature. InProceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–15

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Hyeonsu B Kang, Tongshuang Wu, Joseph Chee Chang, and Aniket Kittur. 2023. Synergi: A mixed-initiative system for scholarly synthesis and sensemaking. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–19

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Hyunwoo Kim, Khanh Duy Le, Gionnieve Lim, Dae Hyun Kim, Yoo Jin Hong, and Juho Kim. 2024. DataDive: Supporting Readers’ Contextualization of Statistical Statements with Data Exploration. InProceedings of the 29th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 623–639

    work page 2024

  31. [31]

    Tae Soo Kim, Matt Latzke, Jonathan Bragg, Amy X Zhang, and Joseph Chee Chang. 2023. Papeos: Augmenting research papers with talk videos. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–19

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    The Semantic Scholar open data platform.arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10140, 2023

    Rodney Michael Kinney, Chloe Anastasiades, Russell Authur, Iz Beltagy, Jonathan Bragg, Alexandra Buraczynski, Isabel Cachola, Stefan Candra, Yoganand Chandrasekhar, Arman Cohan, Miles Crawford, Doug Downey, Jason Dunkelberger, Oren Etzioni, Rob Evans, Sergey Feldman, Joseph Gorney, David W. Graham, F.Q. Hu, Regan Huff, Daniel King, Sebastian Kohlmeier, Ba...

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Kundan Krishna, Sanjana Ramprasad, Prakhar Gupta, Byron C Wallace, Zachary C Lipton, and Jeffrey P Bigham. 2024. Genaudit: Fixing factual errors in language model outputs with evidence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.12566(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Philippe Laban, Alexander R Fabbri, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2024. Summary of a haystack: A challenge to long-context llms and rag systems, 2024.URL https://arxiv. org/abs/24071370 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Philippe Laban, Jesse Vig, Marti Hearst, Caiming Xiong, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2024. Beyond the chat: Executable and verifiable text-editing with llms. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–23

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    Shahid Latif, Zheng Zhou, Yoon Kim, Fabian Beck, and Nam Wook Kim. 2021. Kori: Interactive synthesis of text and charts in data documents.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics28, 1 (2021), 184–194

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    Yoonjoo Lee, Hyeonsu B Kang, Matt Latzke, Juho Kim, Jonathan Bragg, Joseph Chee Chang, and Pao Siangliulue. 2024. Paperweaver: Enriching topical paper alerts by contextualizing recommended papers with user-collected papers. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–19

    work page 2024

  38. [38]

    Alice Li and Luanne Sinnamon. 2024. Generative AI Search Engines as Arbiters of Public Knowledge: An Audit of Bias and Authority.Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology61, 1 (2024), 205–217

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Guanyu Lin, Tao Feng, Pengrui Han, Ge Liu, and Jiaxuan You. 2024. Arxiv Copilot: A Self-Evolving and Efficient LLM System for Personalized Academic Assistance. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations. 122–130

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Nora Freya Lindemann. 2024. Chatbots, search engines, and the sealing of knowledges.AI & SOCIETY(2024), 1–14

    work page 2024

  41. [41]

    Michael Xieyang Liu, Tongshuang Wu, Tianying Chen, Franklin Mingzhe Li, Aniket Kittur, and Brad A Myers. 2024. Selenite: Scaffolding Online Sensemaking with Comprehensive Overviews Elicited from Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–26

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Kyle Lo, Zejiang Shen, Benjamin Newman, Joseph Z Chang, Russell Authur, Erin Bransom, Stefan Candra, Yoganand Chandrasekhar, Regan Huff, Bailey Kuehl, et al. 2023. PaperMage: a unified toolkit for processing, representing, and manipulating visually-rich scientific documents. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Pr...

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Shahan Ali Memon and Jevin D West. 2024. Search engines post-ChatGPT: How generative artificial intelligence could make search less reliable. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11707(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    https://copilot.microsoft.com/ 20 Attribution Gradients

    Mircosoft.Copilot. https://copilot.microsoft.com/ 20 Attribution Gradients

    work page

  45. [45]

    Benjamin Newman, Yoonjoo Lee, Aakanksha Naik, Pao Siangliulue, Raymond Fok, Juho Kim, Daniel S Weld, Joseph Chee Chang, and Kyle Lo. 2024. ArxivDIGESTables: Synthesizing Scientific Literature into Tables using Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22360(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    https://openai.com/index/introducing-deep-research/

    OpenAI.Deep Research. https://openai.com/index/introducing-deep-research/

    work page

  47. [47]

    https://openreader.semanticscholar.org/PaperCraft

    openreader.semanticscholar.org/PaperCraft.openreader.semanticscholar.org/PaperCraft. https://openreader.semanticscholar.org/PaperCraft

    work page

  48. [48]

    Srishti Palani, Aakanksha Naik, Doug Downey, Amy X Zhang, Jonathan Bragg, and Joseph Chee Chang. 2023. Relatedly: Scaffolding literature reviews with existing related work sections. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–20

    work page 2023

  49. [49]

    https://perplexity.ai/

    Perplexity.Perplexity. https://perplexity.ai/

    work page

  50. [50]

    Peter Pirolli and Stuart Card. 2005. The sensemaking process and leverage points for analyst technology as identified through cognitive task analysis. InProceedings of international conference on intelligence analysis, Vol. 5. McLean, VA, USA, 2–4

    work page 2005

  51. [51]

    Kevin Pu, KJ Feng, Tovi Grossman, Tom Hope, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Matt Latzke, Jonathan Bragg, Joseph Chee Chang, and Pao Siangliulue. 2024. IdeaSynth: Iterative Research Idea Development Through Evolving and Composing Idea Facets with Literature-Grounded Feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04025(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    https://pypi.org/project/pypdf/

    pypi.org/project/pypdf.pypi.org/project/pypdf. https://pypi.org/project/pypdf/

    work page

  53. [53]

    Marissa Radensky, Simra Shahid, Raymond Fok, Pao Siangliulue, Tom Hope, and Daniel S Weld. 2024. Scideator: Human-LLM Scientific Idea Generation Grounded in Research-Paper Facet Recombination.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.14634(2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Marissa Radensky, Daniel S Weld, Joseph Chee Chang, Pao Siangliulue, and Jonathan Bragg. 2024. Let’s Get to the Point: LLM-Supported Planning, Drafting, and Revising of Research-Paper Blog Posts.arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10370(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Chirag Shah and Emily M Bender. 2024. Envisioning information access systems: What makes for good tools and a healthy Web?ACM Transactions on the Web18, 3 (2024), 1–24

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Nikhil Sharma, Q Vera Liao, and Ziang Xiao. 2024. Generative echo chamber? effect of llm-powered search systems on diverse information seeking. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–17

    work page 2024

  57. [57]

    Nicole Sultanum and Arjun Srinivasan. 2023. Datatales: Investigating the use of large language models for authoring data-driven articles. In2023 IEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics (VIS). IEEE, 231–235

    work page 2023

  58. [58]

    Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Tatiana Chakravorti, Vipul Gupta, Heidi Biggs, Mukund Srinath, Koustava Goswami, Sarah Rajtmajer, and Shomir Wilson. 2024. An Audit on the Perspectives and Challenges of Hallucinations in NLP.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07461(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Philippe Laban, Yilun Zhou, Yixin Mao, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2024. Search Engines in an AI Era: The False Promise of Factual and Verifiable Source-Cited Responses.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22349(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    David Wadden, Kyle Lo, Bailey Kuehl, Arman Cohan, Iz Beltagy, Lucy Lu Wang, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. SciFact-open: Towards open-domain scientific claim verification.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.13777(2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Frank Wilcoxon. 1992. Individual comparisons by ranking methods. InBreakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution. Springer, 196–202

    work page 1992

  62. [62]

    Dustin Wright, Zain Muhammad Mujahid, Lu Wang, Isabelle Augenstein, and David Jurgens. 2025. Unstructured Evidence Attribution for Long Context Query Focused Summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14409(2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Yuchi Yahagi, Rintaro Chujo, Yuga Harada, Changyo Han, Kohei Sugiyama, and Takeshi Naemura. 2024. PaperWave: Listening to Research Papers as Conversational Podcasts Scripted by LLM.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15023(2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    https://you.com

    you.com.you.com. https://you.com

    work page

  65. [65]

    Chengbo Zheng, Yuanhao Zhang, Zeyu Huang, Chuhan Shi, Minrui Xu, and Xiaojuan Ma. 2024. DiscipLink: Unfolding Interdisciplinary Information Seeking Process via Human-AI Co-Exploration. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 1–20. A Second judge’s ratings of revision quality Section 5.3.1 reports on qualit...

    work page 2024