Khanh Chi Le

Khanh Chi Le, Linghe Wang, Minhwa Lee et al.

Writing is a cognitively demanding activity that requires constant decision-making, heavy reliance on working memory, and frequent shifts between tasks of different goals. To build writing assistants that truly align with writers' cognition, we must capture and decode the complete thought process behind how writers transform ideas into final texts. We present ScholaWrite, the first dataset of end-to-end scholarly writing, tracing the multi-month journey from initial drafts to final manuscripts. We contribute three key advances: (1) a Chrome extension that unobtrusively records keystrokes on Overleaf, enabling the collection of realistic, in-situ writing data; (2) a novel corpus of full scholarly manuscripts, enriched with fine-grained annotations of cognitive writing intentions. The dataset includes \LaTeX-based edits from five computer science preprints, capturing nearly 62K text changes over four months; and (3) analyses and insights into the micro-dynamics of scholarly writing, highlighting gaps between human writing processes and the current capabilities of large language models (LLMs) in providing meaningful assistance. ScholaWrite underscores the value of capturing end-to-end writing data to develop future writing assistants that support, not replace, the cognitive work of scientists.

Karin de Langis, Jong Inn Park, Bin Hu et al.

Emergent cognitive abilities in large language models (LLMs) have been widely observed, but their nature and underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. A growing body of research draws on cognitive science to investigate LLM cognition, but standard methodologies and experimen-tal pipelines have not yet been established. To address this gap we develop CognitivEval, a framework for systematically evaluating the artificial cognitive capabilities of LLMs, with a particular emphasis on robustness in response collection. The key features of CognitivEval include: (i) automatic prompt permutations, and (ii) testing that gathers both generations and model probability estimates. Our experiments demonstrate that these features lead to more robust experimental outcomes. Using CognitivEval, we replicate five classic experiments in cognitive science, illustrating the framework's generalizability across various experimental tasks and obtaining a cognitive profile of several state of the art LLMs. CognitivEval will be released publicly to foster broader collaboration within the cognitive science community.

Debarati Das, Khanh Chi Le, Ritik Sachin Parkar et al.

Legal practitioners, particularly those early in their careers, face complex, high-stakes tasks that require adaptive, context-sensitive reasoning. While AI holds promise in supporting legal work, current datasets and models are narrowly focused on isolated subtasks and fail to capture the end-to-end decision-making required in real-world practice. To address this gap, we introduce LawFlow, a dataset of complete end-to-end legal workflows collected from trained law students, grounded in real-world business entity formation scenarios. Unlike prior datasets focused on input-output pairs or linear chains of thought, LawFlow captures dynamic, modular, and iterative reasoning processes that reflect the ambiguity, revision, and client-adaptive strategies of legal practice. Using LawFlow, we compare human and LLM-generated workflows, revealing systematic differences in structure, reasoning flexibility, and plan execution. Human workflows tend to be modular and adaptive, while LLM workflows are more sequential, exhaustive, and less sensitive to downstream implications. Our findings also suggest that legal professionals prefer AI to carry out supportive roles, such as brainstorming, identifying blind spots, and surfacing alternatives, rather than executing complex workflows end-to-end. Our results highlight both the current limitations of LLMs in supporting complex legal workflows and opportunities for developing more collaborative, reasoning-aware legal AI systems. All data and code are available on our project page (https://minnesotanlp.github.io/LawFlow-website/).

Karin de Langis, William Walker, Khanh Chi Le et al.

We propose an annotation approach that captures not only labels but also the reading process underlying annotators' decisions, e.g., what parts of the text they focus on, re-read or skim. Using this framework, we conduct a case study on the preference annotation task, creating a dataset PreferRead that contains fine-grained annotator reading behaviors obtained from mouse tracking. PreferRead enables detailed analysis of how annotators navigate between a prompt and two candidate responses before selecting their preference. We find that annotators re-read a response in roughly half of all trials, most often revisiting the option they ultimately choose, and rarely revisit the prompt. Reading behaviors are also significantly related to annotation outcomes: re-reading is associated with higher inter-annotator agreement, whereas long reading paths and times are associated with lower agreement. These results demonstrate that reading processes provide a complementary cognitive dimension for understanding annotator reliability, decision-making and disagreement in complex, subjective NLP tasks. Our code and data are publicly available.

Karin de Langis, Jong Inn Park, Andreas Schramm et al.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question. In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner. Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives. These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding. Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs' cognitive and linguistic capabilities.