The Design Space of Recent AI-assisted Research Tools for Ideation, Sensemaking, and Scientific Creativity

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are radically expanding the scope and capability of automation in knowledge work such as academic research. AI-assisted research tools show promise for augmenting human cognition and streamlining research processes, but could potentially increase automation bias and stifle critical thinking. We surveyed the past three years of publications from leading HCI venues. We closely examined 11 AI-assisted research tools, five employing traditional AI approaches and six integrating GenAI, to explore how these systems envision novel capabilities and design spaces. We consolidate four design recommendations that inform cognitive engagement when working with an AI research tool: Providing user agency and control; enabling divergent and convergent thinking; supporting adaptability and flexibility; and ensuring transparency and accuracy. We discuss how these ideas mark a shift in AI-assisted research tools from mimicking a researcher's established workflows to generative co-creation with the researcher and the opportunities this shift affords the research community.

CodeAid: Evaluating a Classroom Deployment of an LLM-based Programming Assistant that Balances Student and Educator Needs

Timely, personalized feedback is essential for students learning programming, especially as class sizes expand. LLM-based tools like ChatGPT offer instant support, but reveal direct answers with code, which may hinder deep conceptual engagement. We developed CodeAid, an LLM-based programming assistant delivering helpful, technically correct responses, without revealing code solutions. For example, CodeAid can answer conceptual questions, generate pseudo-code with line-by-line explanations, and annotate student's incorrect code with fix suggestions. We deployed CodeAid in a programming class of 700 students for a 12-week semester. A thematic analysis of 8,000 usages of CodeAid was performed, further enriched by weekly surveys, and 22 student interviews. We then interviewed eight programming educators to gain further insights on CodeAid. Findings revealed students primarily used CodeAid for conceptual understanding and debugging, although a minority tried to obtain direct code. Educators appreciated CodeAid's educational approach, and expressed concerns about occasional incorrect feedback and students defaulting to ChatGPT.