Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Narrative Keyframing for Generative Creative Writing

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Narrative keyframing — setting plot, character, and first-person perspective constraints at key story moments — lets writers guide AI story generation with finer control, and the resulting stories rate higher in quality and…

desk verdict A real interaction concept for AI-assisted writing with solid user-study evidence, but the technical evaluation compares extra conditioning to an outline-only baseline rather than isolating the keyframing representation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10337 v1 pith:NVGFQTPH submitted 2026-08-11 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CL

Chao Zhang , Abe Davis This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CL
keywords creativewritinghuman-AIinteractionnarrativekeyframingperspectivekeyframescharacterizationlargelanguagemodelsuserstudystorygeneration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces narrative keyframing, an interaction technique that transplants animation's keyframe-and-interpolate idea into AI-assisted creative writing. Instead of giving a language model a single global prompt, writers mark key moments in a story with plot keyframes, character keyframes, and first-person perspective keyframes, and the model fills in the intervening prose. The paper argues that this design gives writers a more controllable, transparent, and engaging way to work with generative AI, and reports evidence that it produces stories with richer characterization and higher overall quality than a standard LLM baseline. A sympathetic reader would care because it offers a concrete answer to a central problem in human-AI co-writing: how to keep authorial intent in control while letting the model do the drafting.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is narrative keyframing, a three-track representation: plot keyframes anchor the timeline of events; character keyframes record a character's physiology, psychology, and sociology at a given plot point; and perspective keyframes are first-person narratives generated from those character states that externalize how a character experiences an event. These tracks are linked — editing a perspective keyframe updates the character keyframe and vice versa — and selected evidence from perspective keyframes is injected into the third-person generation, with color coding and snippet usage tracking making the influence visible. The interpolation step is supplied by the language model: given sparse constraints at key moments, the underlying model generates the intervening character development, first-person reflections, and final prose.

What would settle it

Conduct the technical evaluation with a flat-conditioning baseline that receives the auto-suggested traits, generated first-person perspectives, and selected evidence as additional prompt context but no keyframing interface; if that baseline matches the keyframing pipeline's scores on quality and characterization, the paper's claim that keyframing drives the improvement is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that narrative keyframing supports a more controllable, transparent, and engaging way to use generative AI in creative writing, and that stories produced through it are rated as having higher overall quality and richer characterization than stories from a standard LLM baseline. The key move is treating first-person narratives as an intermediate representation: writers generate each character's perspective for an event, select textual evidence they want, and the model recombines that evidence into a third-person narrative, with color-coded highlights making the connection traceable. The paper further claims this approach is the first to use first-person character narratives as an intermediary for controlling AI-assisted creative writing.

Load-bearing premise

The measured benefits are attributed to the keyframing representation itself; if feeding the same traits, first-person perspectives, and selected evidence directly to the baseline produced the same gains, the central claim would not be supported.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If narrative keyframing works as claimed, AI story tools would replace static global prompts with timeline-based interfaces in which writers localize control at key moments.
  • Because the same underlying model was used in both conditions, the measured gains in quality and characterization point to the keyframing representation itself as the source of improvement.
  • The color-coded traceability between selected evidence and final text could become a standard expectation for human-AI co-writing, supporting both verification and reflection.
  • The keyframing structure makes character arcs explicit and editable, allowing writers to shape how characters change across acts rather than maintaining one static persona.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: A simpler tool that generates first-person drafts before third-person narration might reproduce the characterization gains without a full keyframing interface, which would imply the representation, not the timeline, is the essential ingredient.
  • Inference: Keyframing other narrative properties — tone, pacing, or scene atmosphere — is a natural next step; a reader willing to extend the paper would predict the same control and traceability benefits when those properties are keyframed event by event.
  • Inference: The traceability principle may transfer to other generative tasks: showing the exact mapping from user input to generated output could increase perceived transparency and reflection in code or image generation as well.
  • Inference: Testing keyframing on non-linear plots such as flashbacks would reveal whether the interpolation-based interaction degrades when the story timeline is not monotonic, since the paper's current design supports only sequential progression.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces narrative keyframing, an interaction technique for AI-assisted creative writing in which writers specify plot events, character states, and first-person perspective keyframes at selected moments, and the system generates intervening third-person prose. The authors derive design goals from narratological theories of character arcs, characterization, and focalization; describe a three-view interface (Track, Table, Canvas); and evaluate the system through a technical comparison against a prompt-based LLM baseline using the WQRM-PRE metric and human ratings, plus a within-subjects user study with 12 writers comparing against a chatbot-based baseline. The paper claims that the approach produces stories with higher overall quality and richer characterization, and that it supports a more controllable, transparent, and engaging writing experience.

Significance. If the output-quality and user-experience claims held as stated, narrative keyframing—particularly perspective keyframes—would be a useful intermediate representation for controlling characterization and focalization in AI-assisted writing. The work is well grounded in narratology, uses an external quality model and external writing prompts for the technical evaluation, and the user study employs standardized instruments (CSI and AI System Experience). The perspective-keyframe idea is a genuinely interesting contribution to the design space of AI writing tools. However, the support for the output-quality claim is weakened by a confounded comparison, and the user study is small and system-specific; the conceptual contribution remains attractive but the evidence is not yet commensurate with the breadth of the conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1.1–6.1.2] The technical comparison is confounded. The keyframing condition receives the outline plus auto-suggested traits, generated first-person perspectives, and selected evidence, whereas the vanilla baseline receives only the outline. The observed preference (72/100 by the model; 83.3% human preference for overall quality) could therefore be caused by the extra conditioning information rather than by the keyframing representation. The authors themselves frame Study 1 as validating “narratologically-motivated conditioning” (§6.1), which is narrower than the conclusion that “our approach produces stories with higher overall quality.” An ablation—for example, giving the baseline the same trait lists and perspective-derived evidence, or removing perspective keyframes from the keyframing pipeline—is necessary to attribute the gain to the keyframing design.
  2. [§6.1.1] Study 1 does not exercise the defining property of keyframing, namely sparse user-specified constraints with interpolation between them. The pipeline generates traits for every character at every plot, then randomly selects two pieces of evidence per character per plot, with no user interaction and no comparison of keyframe density. Thus the result supports a richly conditioned pipeline, not the keyframing representation per se. The authors should either test sparse keyframes with interpolation against dense conditioning, or explicitly limit the technical claim to the conditioning scheme rather than to narrative keyframing as an interaction technique.
  3. [§6.2 and Appendix B.3] The user study compares two systems that differ on many interface dimensions—keyframing views, color-coded evidence links, perspective generation, and selection mechanisms versus character sheets, character chatbots, and a story chatbot—so the observed differences in controllability, transparency, and enjoyment cannot be attributed specifically to narrative keyframing. With N=12 and the authors’ own characterization of the results as preliminary, the user-experience claim is suggestive but not conclusive. Additional interface-level ablations or a more matched baseline would be needed to support the broader claim that narrative keyframing, rather than the full system, causes the reported benefits.
  4. [§5.3 vs. Appendix A.4] The prompt titled “Interpolating Character Keyframes” in Appendix A.4 actually instructs the model to extract character traits from an existing narration, not to interpolate character states between keyframes. This makes the interpolation mechanism—a central feature of the keyframing analogy and a feature highlighted in Section 5.3—non-reproducible from the appendix. Please reconcile the prompt with the system description, or clarify whether interpolation is performed by a different prompt that is not shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §1] The abstract says “Through a user study” but the evaluation includes both a technical study and a user study; please refer to the two studies or adjust the wording.
  2. [§6.2.2] There is a typo in the sentence “suggesting that the our system allowed users to better explore”; remove the extra “the”.
  3. [Figure 1] The figure contains garbled and duplicated label text (for example, “Character A rcs” and repeated “Character & Perspective Keyframes” blocks). The final figure should be cleaned up so that the keyframe information flow is legible.
  4. [§3.3] The sentence “To our knowledge, ours is the first work to explore first-person character narratives as an intermediate representation for controlling AI-assisted creative writing” is a strong novelty claim; consider softening it or providing a more systematic comparison with prior point-of-view or perspective-based writing tools.
  5. [Table 2] Reporting only W and p values for the Wilcoxon tests makes effect sizes hard to assess; adding a standardized effect size (e.g., rank-biserial correlation or matched rank-biserial) would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims are evaluated with external quality models, external prompts, human raters, and a user study, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain serving as the load-bearing derivation.

full rationale

The paper derives nothing from its own conclusions by construction. There are no equations, no fitted parameters, and no statistical model whose output is equivalent to an input. The output-quality claim is assessed against an externally trained preference-aligned evaluator (WQRM-PRE from Chakrabarty et al.), external writing prompts from CoAuthor and WritingPrompts, and independent human raters recruited from Prolific; none of these evaluation instruments are calibrated on or derived from the paper's own system outputs. The user study uses standardized external instruments (Creativity Support Index, AI System Experience survey) and an independent baseline interface; participant ratings are behavioral evidence rather than a mathematical consequence of the system definition. The paper's self-citations (Narrix, From Words to Widgets, and prior writing-tool papers) appear only as related-work context and are not used to justify any load-bearing premise, uniqueness claim, or design necessity. The narratological sources cited for character arcs, characterization, and focalization are external literary-theory references that motivate design goals but do not define the evaluation outcome. The main fairness concern noted by a skeptical reader—that Study 1 compares a richly conditioned keyframing pipeline against an outline-only baseline, so the quality gain may stem from extra conditioning information rather than the keyframing representation—is a controlled-comparison limitation, not a circular derivation. It does not make the paper's predicted quality scores equal to its inputs by construction. The paper also openly labels its user study 'promising but preliminary' and limits the scope of its claims, which further supports a non-circular reading. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against external evidence, and no identified step reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the transfer of animation keyframing to narrative, the narratological value of first-person perspectives, the validity of the automatic quality model, and the fairness of the self-constructed baseline. No free parameters are fitted. The invented entities are design constructs with empirical evaluation rather than ad hoc theoretical objects.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLMs can interpolate coherent, plot-faithful prose between sparse narrative constraints.
    Central analogy to animation keyframing; the entire technique depends on GPT-4.1 succeeding at this interpolation (§3.1, §5.6).
  • domain assumption First-person perspective narration externalizes character traits in ways that improve later third-person characterization.
    Drawn from narratology (focalization, Rimmon-Kenan indicators) and point-of-view writing exercises (§2, §5.4); the benefit is plausible but not independently established.
  • domain assumption WQRM-PRE model scores are a valid proxy for expert judgments of story quality.
    Used as the primary quantitative outcome in Study 1; reliance on this model is stated in §6.1.1.
  • domain assumption The baseline system (character sheets, character chatbots, story chatbot) is a fair representation of current generative writing tools.
    The user study comparison assumes the baseline is comparable in polish and usability; this is constructed by the authors and not independently validated (§6.2.1).
invented entities (1)
  • Narrative keyframes (plot, character, perspective) independent evidence
    purpose: Sparse, editable constraints that condition LLM story generation between key moments.
    The paper's central design construct. It has an empirical handle via the user study and output evaluations, so it is not an unfalsifiable entity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Narrative Keyframing for Generative Creative Writing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVGFQTPH

@misc{pith2026260810337,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Narrative Keyframing for Generative Creative Writing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVGFQTPH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10337}
}
read the original abstract

We introduce narrative keyframing, an interaction technique for AI-assisted creative writing that lets writers specify different types of narrative constraints at selected moments in a story, then use AI to generate intervening prose. Inspired by the use of keyframing in animation, narrative keyframing offers a flexible way to connect story planning with adaptive control over generated text. We explore three types of keyframes: plot keyframes define significant events in a story, character keyframes represent how individual characters change over the narrative, and perspective keyframes capture how individual characters experience different events through first-person narratives. Plot and character keyframes offer a flexible way to adapt the type of high-level conditioning explored in previous AI writing tools to more customizable, iterative, and fine-scale control, while perspective keyframes add a new way to control characterization and focalization by using first-person narratives as an intermediary. Through a user study, we show that narrative keyframing supports a more controllable, transparent, and engaging way to use generative AI in creative writing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10337 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Narrative Keyframing for Generative Creative Writing. Our approach introduces narrative keyframes as high-level intermediate representations that connect story planning to narrative generation through three linked forms: plot keyframes, character keyframes, and perspective keyframes (Left). Writers define plot keyframes across events, specify character keyframes to capture how each character changes, and generate fi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From animation keyframing to narrative keyfram￾ing. Animation keyframing specifies the values of different anima￾tion properties at selected points in time and interpolates the states between them. narrative keyframing applies the same interaction principle to generative creative writing: users define key plot events and character states at important points in a story, which jointly condition the generation of narra… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Track View. The Track view supports the main end-to-end workflow from story planning to generation. Writers define (A) plot keyframes, which represent the major events in a story outline. Then, they (B) specify character keyframes for certain plots, and can trigger the AI to (C) suggest new traits or (D) automatically interpolate character development between existing character keyframes. The system generates (E) fi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Table View. The Table View aligns plot keyframes, per￾spective keyframes, and the generated narrative on a row-by-row basis. Color-coded highlights indicate evidence selected from each character’s perspective and show where it is reflected in the fi￾nal third-person na…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Canvas View. The Canvas View presents story materials as a node-link graph, making branching character arcs and their recombination explicit. The visualization helps writers compare alternative narrative paths and inspect how different character arc combinations lead t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Overview of participants’ time distribution. Each row represents a single participant, labeled by their creative writing expertise. The x-axis tracks normalized time as a percentage of task progress. Colored segments denote specific activity categories: Planning Outlin…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Screenshots of the baseline system. The baseline system includes a story outline (A) for plot conditioning and a story chatbot (D) for generation and ideation, as well as character sheets (B) and character chatbots (C) for defining and interacting with characters (simi…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mieke Bal. 2004. Narration and Focalization.Narrative theory: Critical concepts in literary and cultural studies1 (2004), 263–296

    work page 2004

  2. [2]

    2004.Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative

    Mieke Bal. 2004.Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. University of Toronto Press, Scholarly Publishing Division, Toronto. UIST ’26, November 02–05, 2026, Detroit, MI, USA Zhang and Davis

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10. 1191/1478088706qp063oa

    work page 2006

  4. [4]

    Marc Cavazza, Fred Charles, and Steven J. Mead. 2001. Characters in Search of an Author: AI-Based Virtual Storytelling. InVirtual Storytelling Using Virtual Reality Technologies for Storytelling, Olivier Balet, Gérard Subsol, and Patrice Torguet (Eds.). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/3- 540-45420-9_16

    doi:10.1007/3- 2001

  5. [5]

    Tuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2025. AI-Slop to AI-Polish? Aligning Language Models through Edit-Based Writing Re- wards and Test-Time Computation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.07532 arXiv:2504.07532 [cs]

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.07532 2025

  6. [6]

    Erin Cherry and Celine Latulipe. 2014. Quantifying the Creativity Support of Digital Tools through the Creativity Support Index.ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.21, 4 (Aug. 2014), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/2617588

    doi:10.1145/2617588 2014

  7. [9]

    John Joon Young Chung, Wooseok Kim, Kang Min Yoo, Hwaran Lee, Eytan Adar, and Minsuk Chang. 2022. TaleBrush: Sketching Stories with Generative Pretrained Language Models. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3501819

    arXiv 2022

  8. [10]

    John Joon Young Chung and Max Kreminski. 2024. Patchview: LLM-Powered Worldbuilding with Generative Dust and Magnet Visualization. InProceedings of the 37th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3654777.3676352

    arXiv 2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [11]

    Dhillon, Somayeh Molaei, Jiaqi Li, Maximilian Golub, Shaochun Zheng, and Lionel P

    Paramveer S. Dhillon, Somayeh Molaei, Jiaqi Li, Maximilian Golub, Shaochun Zheng, and Lionel P. Robert. 2024. Shaping Human-AI Collaboration: Varied Scaffolding Levels in Co-Writing with Language Models. arXiv:2402.11723 [cs]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [12]

    1995.The Art Of Dramatic Writing: Its Basis in the Creative Interpreta- tion of Human Motives

    Lajos Egri. 1995.The Art Of Dramatic Writing: Its Basis in the Creative Interpreta- tion of Human Motives. Touchstone, New York, NY (u.a.)

    1995

  3. [13]

    Angela Fan, Mike Lewis, and Yann Dauphin. 2018. Hierarchical Neural Story Generation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1805.04833 arXiv:1805.04833 [cs]

    2018 doi arXiv

  4. [14]

    2005.Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting

    Syd Field. 2005.Screenplay: The Foundations of Screenwriting. Delta, New York

    2005

  5. [15]

    1927.Aspects of the Novel

    Edward Morgan Forster. 1927.Aspects of the Novel. Harcourt, Brace, New York

    1927

  6. [16]

    I Like Your Story!

    Jiaying Fu, Xiruo Wang, Kate Vi, Zhouyi Li, Chuyan Xu, and Yuqian Sun. 2025. "I Like Your Story!": A Co-Creative Story-Crafting Game with a Persona-Driven Character Based on Generative AI. InProceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Comput...

    2025

  7. [17]

    James Garvey. 1978. Characterization in Narrative.Poetics7, 1 (1978), 63–78

    1978

  8. [18]

    1990.Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method

    Gerard Genette and Jonathan Culler. 1990.Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    1990

  9. [19]

    Katy Ilonka Gero, Vivian Liu, and Lydia Chilton. 2022. Sparks: Inspiration for Science Writing Using Language Models. InProceedings of the 2022 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1002–1019. https://do...

    2022

  10. [20]

    2017.Method Writing: The First Four Concepts

    Jack Grapes. 2017.Method Writing: The First Four Concepts. Bombshelter Press, Los Angeles, CA

    2017

  11. [21]

    1968.Character and the Novel

    William John Harvey. 1968.Character and the Novel. Cornell University Press, Ithaca

    1968

  12. [22]

    Shelton, Fanny Cheva- lier, Kari Kraus, and Niklas Elmqvist

    Md Naimul Hoque, Tasfia Mashiat, Bhavya Ghai, Cecilia D. Shelton, Fanny Cheva- lier, 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 C...

    2024

  13. [23]

    Chieh-Yang Huang, Shih-Hong Huang, and Ting-Hao Kenneth Huang. 2020. Heteroglossia: In-Situ Story Ideation with the Crowd. InProceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–12. ht...

    2020

  14. [25]

    Maurice Jakesch, Advait Bhat, Daniel Buschek, Lior Zalmanson, and Mor Naaman

  15. [26]

    Jodicleghorn. 2010. Writing Exercise: Switching Points of View

    2010

  16. [27]

    Bernstein

    Joy Kim, Sarah Sterman, Allegra Argent Beal Cohen, and Michael S. Bernstein

  17. [28]

    Taewook Kim, Hyomin Han, Eytan Adar, Matthew Kay, and John Joon Young Chung. 2024. Authors’ Values and Attitudes Towards AI-Bridged Scalable Per- sonalization of Creative Language Arts. https://doi.org/10.1145/3613904.3642529 arXiv:2403.00439 [cs]

    2024

  18. [29]

    John Lasseter. 1987. Principles of traditional animation applied to 3D computer animation. InProceedings of the 14th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH ’87). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 35–44. https://doi.org...

    1987

  19. [31]

    Mina Lee, Percy Liang, and Qian Yang. 2022. CoAuthor: Designing a Human-AI Collaborative Writing Dataset for Exploring Language Model Capabilities. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3502030

    2022

  20. [32]

    Yoonjoo Lee, Tae Soo Kim, Minsuk Chang, and Juho Kim. 2022. Interactive Children’s Story Rewriting Through Parent-Children Interaction. InProceedings of the First Workshop on Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants (In2Writing 2022). Association for Computational Lingui...

    2022 doi

  21. [33]

    Damien Masson, Young-Ho Kim, and Fanny Chevalier. 2025. Textoshop: Interac- tions Inspired by Drawing Software to Facilitate Text Editing. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Yokohama Japan, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713862

    2025

  22. [35]

    Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans

    Piotr Mirowski, Kory W. Mathewson, Jaylen Pittman, and Richard Evans. 2023. Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: Evaluation by Industry Professionals. InProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’23). Associat...

    2023

  23. [36]

    Kyeongman Park, Minbeom Kim, and Kyomin Jung. 2025. A Character-Centric Creative Story Generation via Imagination. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2025, Wanxiang Che, Joyce Nabende, Ekate- rina Shutova, and Mohammad Taher Pilehvar (Eds.). Assoc...

    2025 doi

  24. [37]

    Syemin Park, Soobin Park, and Youn-kyung Lim. 2025. Constella: Supporting Storywriters’ Interconnected Character Creation through LLM-Based Multi- Agents. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.05820 arXiv:2507.05820 [cs]

    2025 doi

  25. [38]

    Hua Xuan Qin, Shan Jin, Ze Gao, Mingming Fan, and Pan Hui. 2024. Char- acterMeet: Supporting Creative Writers’ Entire Story Character Construction Processes Through Conversation with LLM-Powered Chatbot Avatars. InPro- ceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2024

  26. [39]

    Mohi Reza, Nathan Laundry, Ilya Musabirov, Peter Dushniku, Zhi Yuan "Michael" Yu, Kashish Mittal, Tovi Grossman, Michael Liut, Anastasia Kuzminykh, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2023. ABScribe: Rapid Exploration of Multiple Writing Variations in Human-AI Co-Writing Tasks Using Larg...

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [40]

    Mark O. Riedl. 2008. Vignette-Based Story Planning: Creativity through Ex- ploration and Retrieval. InProceedings of the 5th International Joint Workshop on Computational Creativity. Association for Computational Creativity, Madrid, Spain, 41–50

    2008

  28. [41]

    2003.Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics

    Shlomith Rimmon-Kenan. 2003.Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. Rout- ledge, London

    2003

  29. [42]

    Oliver Schmitt and Daniel Buschek. 2021. CharacterChat: Supporting the Creation of Fictional Characters through Conversation and Progressive Manifestation Narrative Keyframing for Generative Creative Writing UIST ’26, November 02–05, 2026, Detroit, MI, USA with a Chatbot. InCr...

    2021

  30. [43]

    Raymond Scupin. 1997. The KJ Method: A Technique for Analyzing Data De- rived from Japanese Ethnology.Human Organization56, 2 (1997), 233–237. jstor:44126786

    1997

  31. [44]

    Hua Shen, Chieh-Yang Huang, Tongshuang Wu, and Ting-Hao Kenneth Huang

  32. [45]

    Jocelyn Shen, Nicolai Marquardt, Hugo Romat, Ken Hinckley, Nathalie Riche, and Fanny Chevalier. 2026. Texterial: A Text-as-Material Interaction Para- digm for LLM-Mediated Writing. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790330 arXiv:2603.00452 [cs]

    2026

  33. [46]

    Siddiqui, Nikki Nasseri, Adam Coscia, Roy Pea, and Hari Subramonyam

    Momin N. Siddiqui, Nikki Nasseri, Adam Coscia, Roy Pea, and Hari Subramonyam

  34. [47]

    InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’23 Companion)

    ConvXAI : Delivering Heterogeneous AI Explanations via Conversations to Support Human-AI Scientific Writing. InCompanion Publication of the 2023 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’23 Companion). Association for Computing Machinery, Ne...

    2023

  35. [48]

    Lu Sun, Stone Tao, Junjie Hu, and Steven P. Dow. 2024. MetaWriter: Exploring the Potential and Perils of AI Writing Support in Scientific Peer Review.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1 (April 2024), 94:1–94:32. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3637371

    2024 doi

  36. [49]

    Yuqian Sun, Xingyu Li, Shunyu Yao, Noura Howell, Tristan Braud, Chang Hee Lee, and Ali Asadipour. 2025. ORIBA: Exploring LLM-Driven Role-Play Chatbot as a Creativity Support Tool for Original Character Artists. https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2512.12630 arXiv:2512.12630 [cs]

    2025 doi

  37. [50]

    Selen Türkay, Daniel Seaton, and Andrew M. Ang. 2018. Itero: A Revision History Analytics Tool for Exploring Writing Behavior and Reflection. InExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’18). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2018

  38. [51]

    2019.Conceptualisation and Exposition: A Theory of Character Construction

    Lina Varotsi. 2019.Conceptualisation and Exposition: A Theory of Character Construction. Routledge, New York. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429060762

    2019 doi

  39. [52]

    Sangho Suh, Meng Chen, Bryan Min, Toby Jia-Jun Li, and Haijun Xia. 2024. Luminate: Structured Generation and Exploration of Design Space with Large Language Models for Human-AI Co-Creation. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24...

    2024

  40. [53]

    Yi Wang, Qian Zhou, and David Ledo. 2024. StoryVerse: Towards Co-Authoring Dynamic Plot with LLM-Based Character Simulation via Narrative Planning. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’24). Association for Computing Machi...

    2024

  41. [54]

    K. M. Weiland. 2016.Creating Character Arcs: The Masterful Author’s Guide to Uniting Story Structure. PenForASword, London

    2016

  42. [55]

    Tongshuang Wu, Michael Terry, and Carrie Jun Cai. 2022. AI Chains: Transparent and Controllable Human-AI Interaction by Chaining Large Language Model Prompts. InCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, New Orleans LA USA, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491102.3517582

    2022

  43. [56]

    E, Hyoungwook Jin, Mingyi Li, Grace Lin, Isabelle Yan Pan, and Steven P

    Yu-Chun Grace Yen, Jane L. E, Hyoungwook Jin, Mingyi Li, Grace Lin, Isabelle Yan Pan, and Steven P. Dow. 2024. ProcessGallery: Contrasting Early and Late Iterations for Design Principle Learning.Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact.8, CSCW1, Article 112 (April 2024), 35 pages. http...

    2024 doi

  44. [57]

    Qian Wan, Jiannan Li, Huanchen Wang, and Zhicong Lu. 2025. Polymind: Parallel Visual Diagramming with Large Language Models to Support Prewriting Through Microtasks. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.09577 arXiv:2502.09577 [cs]

    2025 doi arXiv

  45. [58]

    Chao Zhang, Shunan Guo, Abe Davis, and Eunyee Koh. 2026. Narrix: Remixing Narrative Strategies from Examples for Story Writing. InProceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Barcelona Spain, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1145/3772318.3790813

    2026

  46. [59]

    Rzes- zotarski

    Chao Zhang, Kexin Ju, Peter Bidoshi, Yu-Chun Grace Yen, and Jeffrey M. Rzes- zotarski. 2025. Friction: Deciphering Writing Feedback into Writing Revisions through LLM-Assisted Reflection. InProceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’25)....

    2025

  47. [60]

    Rzes- zotarski

    Chao Zhang, Kexin Ju, Zhuolun Han, Yu-Chun Grace Yen, and Jeffrey M. Rzes- zotarski. 2025. Synthia: Visually Interpreting and Synthesizing Feedback for Writing Revision. InProceedings of the 38th Annual ACM Symposium on User Inter- face Software and Technology (UIST ’25). Asso...

    2025

  48. [61]

    Chao Zhang, Xuechen Liu, Katherine Ziska, Soobin Jeon, Chi-Lin Yu, and Ying Xu

  49. [62]

    Ann Yuan, Andy Coenen, Emily Reif, and Daphne Ippolito. 2022. Wordcraft: Story Writing With Large Language Models. In27th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 841–852. https://doi.org/10.1145...

    2022

  50. [63]

    Chao Zhang, Cheng Yao, Jiayi Wu, Weijia Lin, Lijuan Liu, Ge Yan, and Fangtian Ying. 2022. StoryDrawer: A Child–AI Collaborative Drawing System to Support Children’s Creative Visual Storytelling. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CH...

    2022

  51. [64]

    I", "me",

    Zheng Zhang, Jie Gao, Ranjodh Singh Dhaliwal, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2023. VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototyping. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’23). ...

    2023

  52. [68]

    Rzeszotarski, Yun Huang, and Tal August

    Chao Zhang, Yiren Liu, Lunyiu Nie, Jeffrey M. Rzeszotarski, Yun Huang, and Tal August. 2026. From Words to Widgets for Controllable LLM Generation. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.10925 arXiv:2604.10925 [cs.HC]

    2026 doi arXiv

  53. [71]

    Scan the current snippet for exact short phrases that directly or indirectly demonstrate each listed trait

  54. [72]

    Only report evidence that appears verbatim in the current snippet text

  55. [73]

    When one phrase supports multiple traits from the same category, list all matching traits together

  56. [74]

    Assign each phrase to exactly one evidence category from the list above

  57. [75]

    Return characterEvidence entries in the same order as the character list above

  58. [76]

    Do not include explanations outside the schema

    Return JSON that matches the provided schema exactly. Do not include explanations outside the schema. A.7 Generating Third-Person Narratives Generating Third-Person Narratives: You are a narrative writer. Expand the provided story outline into a third-person story. Story outli...

    2026

  59. [77]

    <evidence_from_perspectives>

    " <evidence_from_perspectives> "

  60. [78]

    <evidence_from_perspectives>

    " <evidence_from_perspectives> " If no snippets: Selected details: (none) Plot 2: <plot_description> <. . . > Requirements: - Preserve the original plot, beat order, and third-person narration. - Do NOT add new events, attempts, or outcomes beyond what the original story alrea...

    2026

  61. [387]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3584931.3607492

  62. [2017]

    InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coop- erative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17)

    Mechanical Novel: Crowdsourcing Complex Work through Reflection and Revision. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coop- erative Work and Social Computing (CSCW ’17). Association for Computing Ma- chinery, New York, NY, USA, 233–245. https://doi.org/1...

    2017

  63. [2023]

    In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Co-Writing with Opinionated Language Models Affects Users’ Views. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581196

    2023

  64. [2024]

    InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24)

    Mathemyths: Leveraging Large Language Models to Teach Mathematical Language through Child-AI Co-Creative Storytelling. InProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–23. https:...

    2024

  65. [2025]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509

    DraftMarks: Enhancing Transparency in Human-AI Co-Writing Through Interactive Skeuomorphic Process Traces. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509. 23505 arXiv:2509.23505 [cs]

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.