pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.00250 · v1 · pith:YDDXGV5Bnew · submitted 2026-05-29 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI· cs.HC

Effects of Varying LLM Access on Essay Writing Behavior

Julia Christenson , Karin de Langis , Shirley Anugrah Hayati , Dongyeop Kang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 22:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AIcs.HC
keywords LLM accessessay writingperceived authorshipstudent ownershipAI assistancewriting behavioruniversity students
0
0 comments X

The pith

Limiting LLM access during essay writing preserves students' sense of ownership while keeping quality the same.

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

The paper runs a small randomized trial in which college students wrote short essays under three conditions: no LLM help, a cap of three short prompts, or unlimited access. Essay quality came out statistically the same in all groups, yet the limited-access students reported markedly higher ownership, felt they gained more in organization, and used the tool more strategically for revisions. Unlimited access produced essays closer to raw LLM text, lowered feelings of creative expression, and reduced the share of students willing to submit the work as their own. The authors conclude that moderate constraints on LLM use can supply helpful scaffolding without fully displacing student authorship. A reader would care because universities are searching for workable rules that let AI assist without erasing the student's role in the final product.

Core claim

In the pilot, 24 students were randomly assigned to write an essay with no LLM access, limited access (at most three prompts, each capped at 100 words), or unlimited access. Overall essay quality showed no reliable differences across the three groups. Students given limited access reported higher ownership, with 62.5 percent saying they would submit the essay as independent work compared with 25 percent in the unlimited group; they also described stronger organizational gains and issued more revision-oriented prompts. The unlimited group spent more time on the task, produced text more similar to LLM output, and reported lower creative expression.

What carries the argument

The three-level experimental manipulation of LLM access (none, limited to three capped prompts, unlimited) as the variable that alters writing behavior, text similarity to model output, time on task, and self-reported authorship and ownership.

If this is right

  • Essay quality remains comparable when students receive some but not unlimited LLM assistance.
  • Limited access leads students to issue more strategic, revision-focused prompts.
  • Unlimited access increases time spent yet reduces reported creative expression and ownership.
  • Constrained access may allow scaffolding benefits while supporting students' sense that the work remains their own.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The ownership advantage seen with limited access might appear in other written assignments if the same prompt caps are applied.
  • Interface designs that automatically enforce the three-prompt limit could make the observed benefits easier to scale.
  • If ownership effects hold in repeated assignments, institutions might prefer limited-access policies over outright bans for preserving learning signals.

Load-bearing premise

Self-reported feelings of ownership, creative expression, and willingness to submit the essay reflect students' actual internal states rather than answers shaped by the experimental setting or social expectations.

What would settle it

A larger replication that finds no difference in ownership rates or submission willingness between the limited-access and unlimited-access groups, or that finds lower essay quality under limited access, would undermine the claim that constrained access is preferable.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.00250 by Dongyeop Kang, Julia Christenson, Karin de Langis, Shirley Anugrah Hayati.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Study pipeline. 300 words, using a text document. Instructions can be found in Appendix A.1. Each participant received the same prompt, shown below: Essay Prompt Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. College students should be encour￾aged to pursue subjects that interest them rather than … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example annotated essay with highlighted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Distribution of writing time (in minutes) by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the type of prompts asked by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Investigating the degree to which large language models (LLMs) affect teaching and learning in universities can help identify strategies for integrating LLMs in a way that supports, rather than undermines, student learning outcomes. This study examined how varying levels of LLM assistance affect writing performance, engagement, and perceived authorship. We report a pilot study in which 24 college students were randomly assigned to write a short essay with no LLM access, limited access (<=3 prompts, responses capped at 100 words), or unlimited access. Overall essay quality was statistically indistinguishable across groups. Yet writing behavior and perceived authorship diverged sharply: students with limited access reported higher ownership (62.5% would submit the essay as independent work, vs. 25% in the unlimited group), stronger organizational gains, and more strategic, revision-focused prompting. The unlimited group spent more time writing, produced essays more similar to LLM output, and reported reduced creative expression. Our findings suggest that constraining, rather than banning, LLM access may preserve authorship confidence while retaining the scaffolding benefits of AI assistance.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper reports results from a pilot study in which 24 college students were randomly assigned to write a short essay under one of three conditions: no LLM access, limited access (≤3 prompts with responses capped at 100 words), or unlimited access. Essay quality was reported as statistically indistinguishable across groups. Writing behavior and self-reported perceived authorship diverged: the limited-access group showed higher ownership (62.5% would submit as independent work vs. 25% unlimited), more strategic prompting, and organizational gains; the unlimited group spent more time, produced more LLM-similar output, and reported lower creative expression. The authors conclude that constraining rather than banning LLM access may preserve authorship confidence while retaining AI scaffolding benefits.

Significance. If the central behavioral and perceptual differences prove robust to larger samples and non-self-report measures, the work could inform university policies on LLM integration in writing assignments by identifying a potential middle path between prohibition and unrestricted use. The pilot design and small n limit generalizability, but the observed divergence in prompting strategy and ownership reports provides a concrete starting point for follow-up experiments.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results] Results section: The claim that essay quality was 'statistically indistinguishable' across conditions is presented without any reported test statistic, p-value, effect size, confidence interval, or error bars. With n=24 this omission prevents assessment of whether the equivalence conclusion is supported or whether the study is simply underpowered for detecting quality differences.
  2. [Methods / Discussion] Methods and Discussion: The central claim that limited access preserves authorship confidence rests entirely on self-report items (e.g., 'would submit as independent work'). No behavioral triangulation—such as analysis of revision depth from logs, source-use patterns, or blinded third-party authorship ratings—is described, leaving open the possibility that condition salience induced demand characteristics rather than genuine changes in internal sense of ownership.
  3. [Methods] Methods: No information is given on how essay quality was scored (rubric details, number of raters, inter-rater reliability, or blinding). This measurement detail is load-bearing for the claim that quality is preserved under limited access.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Percentages (62.5 % and 25 %) are reported without per-condition sample sizes or uncertainty estimates.
  2. [Discussion] The manuscript would benefit from explicit reporting of the exact statistical tests used for all comparisons and from a limitations section that directly addresses the small sample and self-report nature of the authorship measures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our pilot study. We address each major point below, agreeing where additional details are needed and indicating planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Results] Results section: The claim that essay quality was 'statistically indistinguishable' across conditions is presented without any reported test statistic, p-value, effect size, confidence interval, or error bars. With n=24 this omission prevents assessment of whether the equivalence conclusion is supported or whether the study is simply underpowered for detecting quality differences.

    Authors: We agree the statistical details were omitted. In the revised manuscript we will report the appropriate test (ANOVA or equivalent), p-value, effect size, and confidence intervals, along with an explicit discussion of the pilot's limited power given n=24. The primary focus remains behavioral and perceptual patterns rather than strong claims of equivalence. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods / Discussion] Methods and Discussion: The central claim that limited access preserves authorship confidence rests entirely on self-report items (e.g., 'would submit as independent work'). No behavioral triangulation—such as analysis of revision depth from logs, source-use patterns, or blinded third-party authorship ratings—is described, leaving open the possibility that condition salience induced demand characteristics rather than genuine changes in internal sense of ownership.

    Authors: The ownership measure is self-reported, but the manuscript already reports convergent behavioral differences (prompting strategy, time on task, output similarity). We will revise the Discussion to address demand characteristics explicitly and outline future studies with additional behavioral measures. No new data can be added in this revision. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Methods] Methods: No information is given on how essay quality was scored (rubric details, number of raters, inter-rater reliability, or blinding). This measurement detail is load-bearing for the claim that quality is preserved under limited access.

    Authors: We will add full details on the scoring procedure—including rubric, number of raters, inter-rater reliability, and blinding—to the Methods section in the revision. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical pilot with no derivations or fitted predictions

full rationale

The paper reports a randomized pilot experiment (n=24) comparing three LLM-access conditions on essay quality, behavior, and self-reported authorship/ownership. No equations, parameters, predictions, or first-principles derivations appear in the abstract or described methods. All outcomes are direct empirical measurements (essay scores, time logs, Likert-style self-reports, similarity metrics). No self-citation chain, ansatz, or uniqueness theorem is invoked to justify any result. The central claim rests on observed group differences, not on any reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. This is a standard empirical study whose validity questions (e.g., demand characteristics in self-reports) fall outside circularity analysis.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No mathematical axioms, free parameters, or invented entities; the work is an empirical pilot relying on standard assumptions of randomized experiments and self-report validity.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5722 in / 1020 out tokens · 20905 ms · 2026-06-28T22:00:03.626421+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  2. [2]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  3. [3]

    Studies in Higher Education , volume =

    Andy Nguyen and Yvonne Hong and Belle Dang and Xiaoshan Huang , title =. Studies in Higher Education , volume =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  4. [4]

    2024 , eprint=

    GPT-4 Technical Report , author=. 2024 , eprint=

    2024

  5. [5]

    Journal of Educational Psychology , volume=

    Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Learning Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis , author=. Journal of Educational Psychology , volume=. 2014 , publisher=

    2014

  6. [6]

    Policy Studies Journal , volume =

    Churchill, Alexander and Pichika, Shamitha and Xu, Chengxin and Liu, Ying , title =. Policy Studies Journal , volume =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70034 , url =. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/psj.70034 , note =

    work page doi:10.1111/psj.70034

  7. [7]

    Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens , journal =

    Rie Koizumi and Yo In'nami , keywords =. Effects of text length on lexical diversity measures: Using short texts with less than 200 tokens , journal =. 2012 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.012 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.10.012 2012

  8. [8]

    Topics in Cognitive Science , volume=

    Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities , author=. Topics in Cognitive Science , volume=. 2009 , doi=

    2009

  9. [9]

    and Gebru, Timnit and McMillan-Major, Angelina and Shmitchell, Shmargaret

    Bender, Emily M. and Gebru, Timnit and McMillan-Major, Angelina and Shmitchell, Shmargaret , title =. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , pages =. 2021 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3442188.3445922 2021

  10. [10]

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

    Mysore, Sheshera and Das, Debarati and Cao, Hancheng and Sarrafzadeh, Bahareh. Prototypical Human- AI Collaboration Behaviors from LLM -Assisted Writing in the Wild. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.852

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.852 2025

  11. [11]

    Quantifying learning-style adaptation in effectiveness of LLM teaching

    Weijers, Ruben and de Castilho, Gabrielle Fidelis and Godbout, Jean-Fran c ois and Rabbany, Reihaneh and Pelrine, Kellin. Quantifying learning-style adaptation in effectiveness of LLM teaching. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Personalization of Generative AI Systems (PERSONALIZE 2024). 2024

    2024

  12. [12]

    Quantifying the Risks of LLM - and Tool-assisted Rephrasing to Linguistic Diversity

    Wang, Mengying and Spitz, Andreas. Quantifying the Risks of LLM - and Tool-assisted Rephrasing to Linguistic Diversity. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1228

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.1228 2025

  13. [13]

    Understanding self-directed learning in AI-Assisted writing: A mixed methods study of postsecondary learners , journal =

    Chaoran Wang and Zixi Li and Curtis Bonk , keywords =. Understanding self-directed learning in AI-Assisted writing: A mixed methods study of postsecondary learners , journal =. 2024 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100247 , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100247 2024

  14. [14]

    ACM Trans

    Draxler, Fiona and Werner, Anna and Lehmann, Florian and Hoppe, Matthias and Schmidt, Albrecht and Buschek, Daniel and Welsch, Robin , title =. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. , month = feb, articleno =. 2024 , issue_date =. doi:10.1145/3637875 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3637875 2024

  15. [15]

    How Does the Disclosure of AI Assistance Affect the Perceptions of Writing?

    Li, Zhuoyan and Liang, Chen and Peng, Jing and Yin, Ming. How Does the Disclosure of AI Assistance Affect the Perceptions of Writing?. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.279

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.279 2024

  16. [16]

    and August, Tal and Bhat, Avinash and Choksi, Madiha Zahrah and Dutta, Senjuti and Guo, Jin L.C

    Lee, Mina and Gero, Katy Ilonka and Chung, John Joon Young and Shum, Simon Buckingham and Raheja, Vipul and Shen, Hua and Venugopalan, Subhashini and Wambsganss, Thiemo and Zhou, David and Alghamdi, Emad A. and August, Tal and Bhat, Avinash and Choksi, Madiha Zahrah and Dutta, Senjuti and Guo, Jin L.C. and Hoque, Md Naimul and Kim, Yewon and Knight, Simon...

    work page doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 2024

  17. [17]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  18. [18]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  19. [19]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =

  20. [20]

    Literary Writing Style of Charles Dickens , year =

  21. [21]

    Nineteenth-Century Literature , volume =

    Beckson, Karl , title =. Nineteenth-Century Literature , volume =. 2000 , url =

    2000

  22. [22]

    New Writing Techniques , year =

  23. [23]

    2025 , note =

    The Impact of AI-Assisted Writing on Students’ Learning Effectiveness and Perceptions: A Mixed-Methods Study , author =. 2025 , note =. doi:10.2139/ssrn.5396600 , publisher =

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.5396600 2025

  24. [24]

    Applied Science and Sustainable Agriculture Journal , volume =

    Rohilla, Atiya , title =. Applied Science and Sustainable Agriculture Journal , volume =. 2025 , issn =

    2025

  25. [25]

    Smart Learning Environments , volume =

    Zhai, Cheng and Wibowo, Setio and Li, Li Da , title =. Smart Learning Environments , volume =. 2024 , publisher =

    2024

  26. [26]

    Students’ prompt patterns and its effects in AI-assisted academic writing: Focusing on students’ level of AI literacy , journal =

    Kim, Jinhee and Yu, Seongryeong and Lee, Sang-Soog and Detrick, Rita , year =. Students’ prompt patterns and its effects in AI-assisted academic writing: Focusing on students’ level of AI literacy , journal =

  27. [27]

    Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Shibani, Antonette and Knight, Simon and Kitto, Kirsty and Karunanayake, Ajanie and Buckingham Shum, Simon , title =. Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3613905.3651083 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3613905.3651083 2024

  28. [28]

    Comparing Scientific Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT to Original Abstracts Using an Artificial Intelligence Output Detector, Plagiarism Detector, and Blinded Human Reviewers , doi =

    Gao, Catherine and Howard, Frederick and Markov, Nikolay and Dyer, Emma and Ramesh, Siddhi and Luo, Yuan and Pearson, Alexander , year =. Comparing Scientific Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT to Original Abstracts Using an Artificial Intelligence Output Detector, Plagiarism Detector, and Blinded Human Reviewers , doi =

  29. [29]

    Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , volume =

    Yulu Cui , title =. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  30. [30]

    Library Hi Tech , volume =

    Wang, Zhijie , title =. Library Hi Tech , volume =. 2020 , month =. doi:10.1108/LHT-05-2020-0113 , url =

    work page doi:10.1108/lht-05-2020-0113 2020

  31. [31]

    , author=

    Exploring the Educational Potential of ChatGPT: AI-Assisted Narrative Writing for EFL College Students. , author=. Language Teaching Research Quarterly , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  32. [32]

    Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants , pages =

    Guo, Alicia and Wang, Leijie and Heer, Jeffrey and Zhang, Amy , title =. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants , pages =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3690712.3690727 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3690712.3690727 2024

  33. [33]

    Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants , pages =

    Mansour, Atil and Amir, Ofra and Levontin, Liat , title =. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants , pages =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3690712.3690713 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3690712.3690713 2024

  34. [34]

    Proceedings of the 2024 9th International Conference on Information and Education Innovations , pages =

    Xiao, Qimin , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 9th International Conference on Information and Education Innovations , pages =. 2024 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3664934.3664946 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3664934.3664946 2024

  35. [35]

    Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Education, Knowledge and Information Management , pages =

    Zhang, Tingting , title =. Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Education, Knowledge and Information Management , pages =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3756580.3756622 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3756580.3756622 2025

  36. [36]

    Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =

    Chakrabarty, Tuhin and Laban, Philippe and Wu, Chien-Sheng , title =. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , articleno =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3706598.3713559 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713559 2025

  37. [37]

    Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Educational Technology Management , pages =

    Bui, Minh Ngoc and Kim, Eun-young , title =. Proceedings of the 2024 7th International Conference on Educational Technology Management , pages =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3711403.3711455 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3711403.3711455 2024

  38. [38]

    Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference , pages =

    Pan, Hongchen and Araujo Oliveira, Eduardo and Ferreira Mello, Rafael , title =. Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference , pages =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3706468.3706536 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3706468.3706536 2025

  39. [39]

    Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Education, Knowledge and Information Management , pages =

    Shen, Yixin , title =. Proceedings of the 2025 6th International Conference on Education, Knowledge and Information Management , pages =. 2025 , isbn =. doi:10.1145/3756580.3756680 , abstract =

    work page doi:10.1145/3756580.3756680 2025

  40. [40]

    2025 , eprint=

    An Empirical Study to Understand How Students Use ChatGPT for Writing Essays , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  41. [41]

    Writing with AI Lowers Psychological Ownership, but Longer Prompts Can Help , url=

    Joshi, Nikhita and Vogel, Daniel , year=. Writing with AI Lowers Psychological Ownership, but Longer Prompts Can Help , url=. doi:10.1145/3719160.3736608 , booktitle=

    work page doi:10.1145/3719160.3736608

  42. [42]

    AI and Tech in Behavioral and Social Sciences , year =

    Aliakbari, Mohammad and Barzan, Pooria and Allahveysi, Seyyed Pedram , title =. AI and Tech in Behavioral and Social Sciences , year =. doi:10.61838/kman.aitech.4343 , url =

    work page doi:10.61838/kman.aitech.4343

  43. [43]

    2025 , eprint=

    Patterns and Purposes: A Cross-Journal Analysis of AI Tool Usage in Academic Writing , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  44. [44]

    Societies , VOLUME =

    Gerlich, Michael , TITLE =. Societies , VOLUME =. 2025 , NUMBER =

    2025

  45. [45]

    2025 , eprint=

    Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task , author=. 2025 , eprint=

    2025

  46. [46]

    AI Writing Assistants in Tanzanian Universities: Adoption Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities

    Kondoro, Alfred Malengo. AI Writing Assistants in Tanzanian Universities: Adoption Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2025). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.in2writing-1.4

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.in2writing-1.4 2025

  47. [47]

    From Crafting Text to Crafting Thought: Grounding Intelligent Writing Support to Writing Center Pedagogy

    Liu, Yijun and August, Tal. From Crafting Text to Crafting Thought: Grounding Intelligent Writing Support to Writing Center Pedagogy. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2025). 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.in2writing-1.5

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.in2writing-1.5 2025

  48. [48]

    Data , VOLUME =

    Gerlich, Michael , TITLE =. Data , VOLUME =. 2025 , NUMBER =

    2025

  49. [49]

    AI as a Mind Partner: Cognitive Impact in P akistan ' s Educational Landscape

    Khalid, Eman and Javaid, Hammad and Waseem, Yashal and Barlas, Natasha Sohail. AI as a Mind Partner: Cognitive Impact in P akistan ' s Educational Landscape. Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence in Measurement and Education Conference (AIME-Con): Works in Progress. 2025

    2025

  50. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 , year=

    Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.06261 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks

    Reimers, Nils and Gurevych, Iryna. Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2019

    2019

  52. [52]

    Understanding Iterative Revision from Human-Written Text

    Du, Wanyu and Raheja, Vipul and Kumar, Dhruv and Kim, Zae Myung and Lopez, Melissa and Kang, Dongyeop. Understanding Iterative Revision from Human-Written Text. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2022. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.250

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.250 2022

  53. [53]

    Les caract

    Guiraud, Pierre , journal=. Les caract. 1954 , publisher=

    1954

  54. [54]

    Read Write Think , author=

    Essay rubric , author=. Read Write Think , author=