Thinking Assistants: LLM-Based Conversational Assistants that Help Users Think By Asking rather than Answering
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Many AI systems focus solely on providing solutions or explaining outcomes. However, complex tasks like research and strategic thinking often benefit from a more comprehensive approach to augmenting the thinking process rather than passively getting information. We introduce the concept of "Thinking Assistant", a new genre of assistants that help users improve decision-making with a combination of asking reflection questions based on expert knowledge. Through our lab study (N=80), these Large Language Model (LLM) based Thinking Assistants were better able to guide users to make important decisions, compared with conversational agents that only asked questions, provided advice, or neither. Based on the results, we develop a Thinking Assistant in academic career development, determining research trajectory or developing one's unique research identity, which requires deliberation, reflection and experts' advice accordingly. In a longitudinal deployment with 223 conversations, participants responded positively to approximately 65% of the responses. Our work proposes directions for developing more effective LLM agents. Rather than adhering to the prevailing authoritative approach of generating definitive answers, LLM agents aimed at assisting with cognitive enhancement should prioritize fostering reflection. They should initially provide responses designed to prompt thoughtful consideration through inquiring, followed by offering advice only after gaining a deeper understanding of the user's context and needs.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 5 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Dec 2023.
Builds on
5 of 71 references.
References · 5
- 2022On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models?cited by 137
- 2023DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safetycited by 86
- 2021Towards a Science of Human-AI Decision Making: A Survey of Empirical Studiescited by 85
- 2023Understanding the Benefits and Challenges of Using Large Language Model-based Conversational Agents for Mental Well-being Supportcited by 75
- 2023Appropriateness is all you need!cited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2025Agentic Large Language Models, a surveycited by 105
- 2024Conversational Agents as Catalysts for Critical Thinking: Challenging Design Fixation in Group Designcited by 4
- 2026LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMscited by 0
- 2026Asking Questions the Right Way: A Multi-Agent Conversational System for Prompt Formulation in Complex Task Resolutioncited by 0
- 2026Asking Questions the Right Way: A Multi-Agent Conversational System for Prompt Formulation in Complex Task Resolution2 Aug 2026
- 2026LGMT: Logic-Grounded Metamorphic Testing for Evaluating the Reasoning Reliability of LLMs12 May 2026
- 2025Agentic Large Language Models, a survey29 Mar 2025
- 2024Conversational Agents as Catalysts for Critical Thinking: Challenging Design Fixation in Group Design17 Jun 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2023CoQuest: Exploring Research Question Co-Creation with an LLM-based Agent
- 2026AI Assistants Overassist
- 2025Overhearing LLM Agents: A Survey, Taxonomy, and Roadmap
- 2025EAIRA: Establishing a Methodology for Evaluating AI Models as Scientific Research Assistants
- 2026Human Thinking under Plural LLM Assistance: Mathematical Problem Solving and Open-Ended Writing
- 2024Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers
- 2023LatEval: An Interactive LLMs Evaluation Benchmark with Incomplete Information from Lateral Thinking Puzzles
- 2025LLM should think and action as a human