Critical Inker: Scaffolding Critical Thinking in AI-Assisted Writing Through Socratic Questioning
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917391961686016 |
|---|---|
| author | Hugenroth, Philipp Danry, Valdemar Maes, Pattie |
| author_facet | Hugenroth, Philipp Danry, Valdemar Maes, Pattie |
| contents | As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly automate writing tasks, there is a growing risk of cognitive deskilling where users offload critical thinking to the system. To address this, we introduce Critical Inker, a writing tool designed to scaffold critical reflection during writing through logical analysis and socratic feedback. We present two methods: (1) A Socratic chatbot using questions to help them realize and fix logical errors in their writing and (2) Visual Feedback, which highlights logical errors in the text without dialog. We detail the technical implementation of the system and evaluate its argument extraction and logical validity accuracy. Our evaluation shows a 91.2% argument overlap with ground truth argument annotations and 87% validity accuracy. Finally, we conducted a small-scale pilot and discuss early qualitative results. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2604_07167 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Critical Inker: Scaffolding Critical Thinking in AI-Assisted Writing Through Socratic Questioning Hugenroth, Philipp Danry, Valdemar Maes, Pattie Human-Computer Interaction As Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly automate writing tasks, there is a growing risk of cognitive deskilling where users offload critical thinking to the system. To address this, we introduce Critical Inker, a writing tool designed to scaffold critical reflection during writing through logical analysis and socratic feedback. We present two methods: (1) A Socratic chatbot using questions to help them realize and fix logical errors in their writing and (2) Visual Feedback, which highlights logical errors in the text without dialog. We detail the technical implementation of the system and evaluate its argument extraction and logical validity accuracy. Our evaluation shows a 91.2% argument overlap with ground truth argument annotations and 87% validity accuracy. Finally, we conducted a small-scale pilot and discuss early qualitative results. |
| title | Critical Inker: Scaffolding Critical Thinking in AI-Assisted Writing Through Socratic Questioning |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.07167 |