Expressing confidence is challenging for embodied agents navigating dynamic multimodal environments, where uncertainty arises from both perception and decision-making processes. We present the first work investigating embodied confidence elicitation in open-ended multimodal environments. We introduce Elicitation Policies, which structure confidence assessment across inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning, along with Execution Policies, which enhance confidence calibration through scenario reinterpretation, action sampling, and hypothetical reasoning. Evaluating agents in calibration and failure prediction tasks within the Minecraft environment, we show that structured reasoning approaches, such as Chain-of-Thoughts, improve confidence calibration. However, our findings also reveal persistent challenges in distinguishing uncertainty, particularly under abductive settings, underscoring the need for more sophisticated embodied confidence elicitation methods.

The field of Computer science (CS) has rapidly evolved over the past few decades, providing computational tools and methodologies to various fields and forming new interdisciplinary communities. This growth in CS has significantly impacted institutional practices and relevant research communities. Therefore, it is crucial to explore what specific research values, known as basic and fundamental beliefs that guide or motivate research attitudes or actions, CS-related research communities promote. Prior research has manually analyzed research values from a small sample of machine learning papers. No prior work has studied the automatic detection of research values in CS from large-scale scientific texts across different research subfields. This paper introduces a detailed annotation scheme featuring ten research values that guide CS-related research. Based on the scheme, we build value classifiers to scale up the analysis and present a systematic study over 226,600 paper abstracts from 32 CS-related subfields and 86 popular publishing venues over ten years.

With the exponential growth of research facilitated by modern technology and improved accessibility, scientific discoveries have become increasingly fragmented within and across fields. This makes it challenging to assess the significance, novelty, incremental findings, and equivalent ideas between related works, particularly those from different research communities. Large language models (LLMs) have recently demonstrated strong quantitative and qualitative reasoning abilities, and multi-agent LLM debates have shown promise in handling complex reasoning tasks by exploring diverse perspectives and reasoning paths. Inspired by this, we introduce Tree-of-Debate (ToD), a framework which converts scientific papers into LLM personas that debate their respective novelties. To emphasize structured, critical reasoning rather than focusing solely on outcomes, ToD dynamically constructs a debate tree, enabling fine-grained analysis of independent novelty arguments within scholarly articles. Through experiments on scientific literature across various domains, evaluated by expert researchers, we demonstrate that ToD generates informative arguments, effectively contrasts papers, and supports researchers in their literature review.

We present Cocoa, a system that implements a novel interaction design pattern -- interactive plans -- for users to collaborate with an AI agent on complex, multi-step tasks in a document editor. Cocoa harmonizes human and AI efforts and enables flexible delegation of agency through two actions: Co-planning (where users collaboratively compose a plan of action with the agent) and Co-execution (where users collaboratively execute plan steps with the agent). Using scientific research as a sample domain, we motivate the design of Cocoa through a formative study with 9 researchers while also drawing inspiration from the design of computational notebooks. We evaluate Cocoa through a user study with 16 researchers and find that when compared to a strong chat baseline, Cocoa improved agent steerability without sacrificing ease of use. A deeper investigation of the general utility of both systems uncovered insights into usage contexts where interactive plans may be more appropriate than chat, and vice versa. Our work surfaces numerous practical implications and paves new paths for interactive interfaces that foster more effective collaboration between humans and agentic AI systems.

In our era of rapid technological advancement, the research landscape for writing assistants has become increasingly fragmented across various research communities. We seek to address this challenge by proposing a design space as a structured way to examine and explore the multidimensional space of intelligent and interactive writing assistants. Through a large community collaboration, we explore five aspects of writing assistants: task, user, technology, interaction, and ecosystem. Within each aspect, we define dimensions (i.e., fundamental components of an aspect) and codes (i.e., potential options for each dimension) by systematically reviewing 115 papers. Our design space aims to offer researchers and designers a practical tool to navigate, comprehend, and compare the various possibilities of writing assistants, and aid in the envisioning and design of new writing assistants.

Scientific jargon can impede researchers when they read materials from other domains. Current methods of jargon identification mainly use corpus-level familiarity indicators (e.g., Simple Wikipedia represents plain language). However, researchers' familiarity of a term can vary greatly based on their own background. We collect a dataset of over 10K term familiarity annotations from 11 computer science researchers for terms drawn from 100 paper abstracts. Analysis of this data reveals that jargon familiarity and information needs vary widely across annotators, even within the same sub-domain (e.g., NLP). We investigate features representing individual, sub-domain, and domain knowledge to predict individual jargon familiarity. We compare supervised and prompt-based approaches, finding that prompt-based methods including personal publications yields the highest accuracy, though zero-shot prompting provides a strong baseline. This research offers insight into features and methods to integrate personal data into scientific jargon identification.

While there has been significant development of models for Plain Language Summarization (PLS), evaluation remains a challenge. This is in part because PLS involves multiple, interrelated language transformations (e.g., adding background explanations, removing specialized terminology). No metrics are explicitly engineered for PLS, and the suitability of other text generation evaluation metrics remains unclear. To address these concerns, our study presents a granular meta-evaluation testbed, APPLS, designed to evaluate existing metrics for PLS. Drawing on insights from previous research, we define controlled perturbations for our testbed along four criteria that a metric of plain language should capture: informativeness, simplification, coherence, and faithfulness. Our analysis of metrics using this testbed reveals that current metrics fail to capture simplification, signaling a crucial gap. In response, we introduce POMME, a novel metric designed to assess text simplification in PLS. We demonstrate its correlation with simplification perturbations and validate across a variety of datasets. Our research contributes the first meta-evaluation testbed for PLS and a comprehensive evaluation of existing metrics, offering insights with relevance to other text generation tasks.

Scholarly publications are key to the transfer of knowledge from scholars to others. However, research papers are information-dense, and as the volume of the scientific literature grows, the need for new technology to support the reading process grows. In contrast to the process of finding papers, which has been transformed by Internet technology, the experience of reading research papers has changed little in decades. The PDF format for sharing research papers is widely used due to its portability, but it has significant downsides including: static content, poor accessibility for low-vision readers, and difficulty reading on mobile devices. This paper explores the question "Can recent advances in AI and HCI power intelligent, interactive, and accessible reading interfaces -- even for legacy PDFs?" We describe the Semantic Reader Project, a collaborative effort across multiple institutions to explore automatic creation of dynamic reading interfaces for research papers. Through this project, we've developed ten research prototype interfaces and conducted usability studies with more than 300 participants and real-world users showing improved reading experiences for scholars. We've also released a production reading interface for research papers that will incorporate the best features as they mature. We structure this paper around challenges scholars and the public face when reading research papers -- Discovery, Efficiency, Comprehension, Synthesis, and Accessibility -- and present an overview of our progress and remaining open challenges.

Large language models have introduced exciting new opportunities and challenges in designing and developing new AI-assisted writing support tools. Recent work has shown that leveraging this new technology can transform writing in many scenarios such as ideation during creative writing, editing support, and summarization. However, AI-supported expository writing--including real-world tasks like scholars writing literature reviews or doctors writing progress notes--is relatively understudied. In this position paper, we argue that developing AI supports for expository writing has unique and exciting research challenges and can lead to high real-world impacts. We characterize expository writing as evidence-based and knowledge-generating: it contains summaries of external documents as well as new information or knowledge. It can be seen as the product of authors' sensemaking process over a set of source documents, and the interplay between reading, reflection, and writing opens up new opportunities for designing AI support. We sketch three components for AI support design and discuss considerations for future research.