arXiv:2512.11661v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in academic writing practices. Although numerous studies have explored how researchers employ these tools for scientific writing, their concrete implementation, limitations, and design challenges within the literature review process remain underexplored. In this paper, we report a user study with researchers across multiple disciplines to characterize current practices, benefits, and \textit{pain points} in using LLMs to investigate related work. We identified three recurring gaps: (i) lack of trust in outputs, (ii) persistent verification burden, and (iii) requiring multiple tools. This motivates our proposal of six design goals and a high-level framework that operationalizes them through improved related papers visualization, verification at every step, and human-feedback alignment with generation-guided explanations. Overall, by grounding our work in the practical, day-to-day needs of researchers, we designed a framework that addresses these limitations and models real-world LLM-assisted writing, advancing trust through verifiable actions and fostering practical collaboration between researchers and AI systems.

arXiv:2510.19033v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: While much research has shown the presence of AI's "under-the-hood" biases (e.g., algorithmic, training data, etc.), what about "over-the-hood" inclusivity biases: barriers in user-facing AI products that disproportionately exclude users with certain problem-solving approaches? Recent research has begun to report the existence of such biases -- but what do they look like, how prevalent are they, and how can developers find and fix them? To find out, we conducted a field study with 3 AI product teams, to investigate what kinds of AI inclusivity bugs exist uniquely in user-facing AI products, and whether/how AI product teams might harness an existing (non-AI-oriented) inclusive design method to find and fix them. The teams' work resulted in identifying 6 types of AI inclusivity bugs arising 83 times, fixes covering 47 of these bug instances, and a new variation of the GenderMag inclusive design method, GenderMag-for-AI, that is especially effective at detecting certain kinds of AI inclusivity bugs.