The DOI matches its DataCite record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AI Transparency in the Age of LLMs: A Human-Centered Research Roadmap
Open accessAbstract
The rise of powerful large language models (LLMs) brings about tremendous opportunities for innovation but also looming risks for individuals and society at large. We have reached a pivotal moment for ensuring that LLMs and LLM-infused applications are developed and deployed responsibly. However, a central pillar of responsible AI -- transparency -- is largely missing from the current discourse around LLMs. It is paramount to pursue new approaches to provide transparency for LLMs, and years of research at the intersection of AI and human-computer interaction (HCI) highlight that we must do so with a human-centered perspective: Transparency is fundamentally about supporting appropriate human understanding, and this understanding is sought by different stakeholders with different goals in different contexts. In this new era of LLMs, we must develop and design approaches to transparency by considering the needs of stakeholders in the emerging LLM ecosystem, the novel types of LLM-infused applications being built, and the new usage patterns and challenges around LLMs, all while building on lessons learned about how people process, interact with, and make use of information. We reflect on the unique challenges that arise in providing transparency for LLMs, along with lessons learned from HCI and responsible AI research that has taken a human-centered perspective on AI transparency. We then lay out four common approaches that the community has taken to achieve transparency -- model reporting, publishing evaluation results, providing explanations, and communicating uncertainty -- and call out open questions around how these approaches may or may not be applied to LLMs. We hope this provides a starting point for discussion and a useful roadmap for future research.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“End-user studies suggest that prompting is challenging, with nonexpert users making various errors and adopting ineffective strategies-a reflection of the demand on users' metacognitive monitoring and control [33,41,43,85,103,174,205].”
From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [103]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–200 of 210
Schmidmaier, M., Rupp, J., & Mayer, S. (2025) · INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIMODAL INTERACTION · doi:10.1145/3716553.3750759 · Cited by 6
“In addition to such explicit feedback, research in the felds of transparency and explainability explores how to convey reasoning processes, limitations, and biases of a system [3, 14, 47, 52, 79].”
Explainable pedagogical alignment: auditing LLMs with learning theories
Figaredo, D. D., Vindel, J. L. F., & Puerta, L. G. (2025) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-025-13857-2 · Cited by 4
Shared Minds: The Cognitive Parallels Between Humans and Artificial Intelligence
Tremblay, S., Marois, A., Zare, M., & Lafond, D. (2026) · Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1155/hbe2/9946143 · Cited by 5
Agentic AI in services: orchestrating human–machine synergy for service excellence
Srivastava, A., & Fuloria, S. (2026) · International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences · doi:10.1108/ijqss-03-2026-303 · Cited by 4
Link, S., Redmon, R., & Hagan, M. (2025) · Research Methods in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100219 · Cited by 4
The State of Large Language Models in HCI Research: Workshop Report
Quéré, M. A. L., Schroeder, H., Randazzo, C., & Gao, J. (2025) · interactions · doi:10.1145/3705617 · Cited by 5
“LLMs are unique because they can be used for an array of roles and tasks across the research pipe-line, giving rise to significant opportunities and challenges [2,3,4].”
Liu, G., Bono, C. A., & Pierri, F. (2025) · PeerJ Computer Science · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2694 · Cited by 8
Machine Learning Applications in UAV Swarms
Hussain, S., Sohail, T., & Khan, M. A. (2025) · Apress eBooks · doi:10.1007/979-8-8688-1047-3_4 · Cited by 2
Understanding Industry Practitioners' Experiences in Generative AI Governance
Do, H. J., Babbar, S., Li, W., Walks, L., & Misko, S. (2025) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3706599.3720275 · Cited by 2
Surfacing citizens’ policy perspectives at scale in the age of large language models
Lopez-Lopez, E., & Herzog, S. M. (2025) · Behavioral Science & Policy · doi:10.1177/23794607251346311 · Cited by 3
“74,78 Conclusion LLM-based methods offer tremendous potential benefits for policymaking and society at large but also present significant risks.”
A Conceptual Framework of AI Transparency From Sociotechnical Perspective
Huang, C., Wang, Z., Wen, X., Wang, X., & Yao, X. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3608735 · Cited by 2
“…but not limited to: acknowledgment of the known properties, function and limitations of AI model [29]; comprehensive model reporting and documentation [30]; publishing model evaluation results [31]; and posthoc explanation techniques such as LIME [32] or SHAP [33] that offer partial insights.”
The Enterprising and Elusive Prospects of Human-AI Collaboration
Gadiraju, U., & Balayn, A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-01940-0_7 · Cited by 5
Troussas, C., Papakostas, C., Krouska, A., & Sgouropoulou, C. (2026) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics15040877 · Cited by 4
Is My Text in Your AI Model? Gradient-based Membership Inference Test applied to LLMs
Mancera, G., DeAlcala, D., Fiérrez, J., Tolosana, R., & Morales, A. (2026) · IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) · doi:10.1109/cai68641.2026.11536313 · Cited by 8
“2 ) This approach seeks to audit AI and machine learning models, improving trans-parency and explainability (Arrieta et al., 2020; Liao and Vaughan, 2023).”
Girdwood, T., & Manikonda, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics · doi:10.3389/frma.2026.1863790 · Cited by 3
Local Explanations for Large Language Models: a Brief Review of Methods
Volkov, E. N., & Averkin, A. N. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Soft Computing and Measurements (SCM) · doi:10.1109/scm62608.2024.10554222 · Cited by 3
“This aspect is critically important not only for developers and researchers but also for end users who demand transparency and explainability of systems based on artificial intelligence technologies [1].”
BackgroundWho Does What? Archetypes of Roles Assigned to LLMs During Human-AI Decision-Making
Chappidi, S., Singh, J. P., & Krauze, A. V. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791428 · Cited by 5
“Consequently, this paper focuses on the use of LLMs in complex decision-making scenarios more likely to reflect real-world implementation and use of LLMs.”
Kellogg, K. C., Lifshitz‐Assaf, H., Randazzo, S., Mollick, E., Dell’Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4857373 · Cited by 2
What Can AI Maturity Models Achieve in Business Practice?
Andrae, S. (2025) · Advances in finance, accounting, and economics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7357-6.ch012 · Cited by 1
Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions
Li, L.-H., & Nugroho, A. C. (2025) · Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering (ECTI DAMT & NCON) · doi:10.1109/ectidamtncon64748.2025.10961969 · Cited by 1
“• Technology Innovation Institute (TII): Based in the UAE, TII has developed models like Falcon 180B, which is one of the most powerful open-source LLMs with 180 billion parameters [38-39].”
Venturing ChatGPT's lens to explore human values in software artifacts: a case study of mobile APIs
Mougouei, D., Rafi, S., Fahmideh, M., Mougouei, E., Khan, J. A., Dam, H. K., Nurwidyantoro, A., & Chaudron, M. R. V. (2025) · Behaviour and Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2025.2478278 · Cited by 1
Automated Trustworthiness Oracle Generation for Machine Learning Text Classifiers
Tung, L. N., Cho, S. B., Du, X., Neelofar, N., Terragni, V., Ruberto, S., & Aleti, A. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. · doi:10.1145/3729376 · Cited by 6
“(c) A trustworthy prediction of a positive review Prediction probabilities 0.928 negative 0.072 positive I noticed that my back door wouldn't go down and one of the sensor's led was off.”
InfluentialPerformance of Large Language Models in the Cognitive Analysis of Misinformation: Evaluation Study
Wojtczak, D. N., McQuire, C., Zuccolo, L., Peersman, C., & McConville, R. (2025) · JMIR Infodemiology · doi:10.2196/72524 · Cited by 1
Proposing Heuristics to Calibrate Perceived Trust in the User Interface Design
Paramonova, I., Lamas, D., & Sousa, S. (2025) · European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/3746175.3746207 · Cited by 1
The Material Agency of a Large Language Model
Puzio, A. (2025) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-025-00225-3 · Cited by 4
“…diverse perspectives in knowledge processes–for example, through multiple response options, graphs, verbal expressions like “It is not clear, but…,” visualizations of certainty levels, or the development of new methods for communicating uncertainty (Xu et al., 2025; Liao & Wortman Vaughan, 2024).”
A Teachable Machine for Transformers
Pope, N., & Tedre, M. (2025) · Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research · doi:10.1145/3769994.3770061 · Cited by 2
“For most learners they remain opaque black boxes [16, 27, 36].”
Ouyang, J., & Narechania, A. A. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798415 · Cited by 2
“Future research should also explore how specific UI interventions, such as credibility warning labels [23] or interactive visualization of source provenance [28], can encourage users toward more active verification behaviors.”
Jecker, N. S., Ozeki-Hayashi, R., Nakazawa, E., & Fujita, T. (2026) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-026-01073-w · Cited by 1
“Although opacity is inherent to how generative AI models work, respect for persons’ autonomy still requires disclosing uncertainty and associated risk and sharing a model’s outcomes and evidence with stakeholders (Liao & Vaughan, 2024 ; Coalition for Health AI (CHAI), 2024 ).”
Colgate, M., & Colgate, O. (2026) · Information · doi:10.3390/info17050443 · Cited by 1
Nwokeji, J. C., Nkwo, M. S., Ikwunne, T. A., & Yeerbo, M. (2026) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-026-01151-x · Cited by 1
Nguyen, H., Zhang, Y., Noel, Z. R., & McLaughlin, J. (2026) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-08-2025-0147 · Cited by 1
Lee, H., Seo, S., Park, S., Tam, L., Kim, S., & Jang, Y. (2026) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2026.102709 · Cited by 1
Al‐Bannay, H. (2026) · Journal of Educational Technology and Online Learning · doi:10.31681/jetol.1793483 · Cited by 1
Trustworthiness Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chen, P., & Liu, S. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76770-8_12 · Cited by 2
REFLECT: Tutorial on Reflecting on Bias in LLMs through Human-Centered Perspectives
Tommasel, A., Schedl, M., & Hertwig, R. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/3742414.3794952
Zheng, Z., Yu, C., Chen, W., Song, M., Liu, B., Liu, J., Wang, S., Wang, X. Q., Cai, J., & Shi, Y. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790318 · Cited by 1
Scheuerman, M. K., Hutiri, W. T., Rahmattalabi, A., Matthews, V., Xiang, A., & Andrews, J. T. A. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790364 · Cited by 1
Chen, C., Molina, M. D., Liao, M., & Snyder, E. C. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791635 · Cited by 8
“This extends prior HCI work on algorithmic transparency [36, 41, 58, 75] by foregrounding memory as a new trust boundary.”
A Framework to Characterize Reporting on Generative AI Use
Balayn, A., Rao, V. N., Blodgett, S. L., Caliskan, A., & Barocas, S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791649 · Cited by 1
“These calls build on—and have helped accelerate the adoption of—artifacts and guidance like Model Cards [70], Datasheets for Datasets [42], the CLeAR documentation framework [27], Data Nutrition Labels [49], and a human-centered transparency roadmap [61].”
Italiano, G. F., Martino, A., & Piccardo, G. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-81404-4_1
Designing Human-Automation Redundancy: Overreliance, Automation Shirking, and the Operator’s Dilemma
Cohen, D., Roth, Y., Rieskamp, J., & Schöbel, M. (2025) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5098488
Peters, R. M., Kok, F., van Meerten, J., & Smit, K. (2025) · Bled eConference · doi:10.18690/um.fov.4.2025.47
Majji, E. R., Banana, L., & Kanta, P. (2025) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0279449
Patel, J., Banik, K., Ibrahim, S. T., & Katapally, T. R. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.08.21.25334182
“While MICE and the AI model were tested independently, hybrid approaches that integrate the strengths of both may ultimately offer more robust solutions [46].”
Mondragón, J. J. P., & Trujillo, A. E. (2025) · Cureus Journal of Computer Science. · doi:10.7759/s44389-025-07546-x
“…do they make part of the public domain important characteristics such as training parameters, size of the bases, data provenance, or resources to understand the model, among others [36,38] Decisions and the direction of developments, as well as the use and nature of the data, are left to a few.”
Designing Trustworthy Technology
Paramonova, I., Beltrão, G., Souza, D., Sousa, S., & Lamas, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05008-3_3
Munhoz, J. P. G., & Vale, O. A. (2025) · Simpósio Brasileiro de Tecnologia da Informação e da Linguagem Humana (STIL) · doi:10.5753/stil.2025.37867
Boutsikaris, L., & Polykalas, S. E. (2025) · IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) · doi:10.1109/istas65609.2025.11269621
“Most often, such debiasing methods are utilized to expose and address bias within LLMs through additional evaluation with fairness-causing metrics to determine the likeliness of equal treatment across demographic groups [5] [8] [9] [10] [11].”
Security Risks in Large Language Models and General Mitigation Strategies
Zhang, R., & Kanyane, M. H. (2025) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-13075-4_1
Charting a Path Toward a Responsible and Human-Centered AI Future
Shafik, W. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-09130-7_10
Transparent and Equitable Metrics and Models
Arias-Duart, A., Cortés, Á., & Ulises Cortés, A. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61050-9_28-1
How Marketers Can Utilize Generative AI in Qualitative Research
Fares, O. H. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75316-9_55-1
Explaining the 'Unexplainable' Large Language Models
Tan, Z., Wang, S., Chen, T., Ma, J., Li, J., & Liu, H. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3773966.3777913
Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Practical Guide for Radiologists
Dietrich, N. T., & Loh, C. (2026) · Roentgen Ray Review · doi:10.2214/r3j.25.01106
Interaction-Centric Cybersecurity Risks in LLM-Powered Dialogue Systems
Jena, P., Zad, S., & Akbar, R. (2026) · IEEE Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC) · doi:10.1109/ccwc67433.2026.11393850
“[44], [42] The taxonomy enables empirical testing with existing benchmarks and supports policy alignment with frameworks such as the EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF .”
InfluentialMini-review: considering impacts of artificial intelligence on the development of measurement scales
Stanton, J. M. (2026) · Frontiers in Organizational Psychology · doi:10.3389/forgp.2026.1787155
Nag, A., & Chaudhuri, D. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7534-2.ch012
Green by Design AI in Fashion Retail and the Rise of the Conscious Consumer
Malhi, A. S., Yadav, P. S., Bisht, D., Sharma, A. P. G. K., Sharma, A., & Rashmi, B. H. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-5525-2.ch001
Lin, J., & Powell, N. L. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2636791 · Cited by 1
Gong, Z., Peng, D., Cui, J., & Lv, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1751670 · Cited by 3
Pothukuchi, A. (2026) · International Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering · doi:10.22399/ijcesen.5051
“The transparency mechanisms were not only assessed in terms of their technical characteristics but also in regard to their impact on human judgment and action [9].”
Influentialde Carvalho, M. Z., Penha, R., Vils, L., Bizarrias, F. S., & Serra, F. A. R. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14040366
Suryaram, S., Paulraj, G. J. L., Stewart Kirubakaran, S., & Jebadurai, I. J. (2026) · International Conference on Intelligent Data Communication Technologies and Internet of Things (IDCIoT) · doi:10.1109/idciot67589.2026.11455857
“Liao and Vaughan [16] developed a "human centered" roadmap for transparency in AI, including 'Standards', 'Multimodal Explanations', and 'Design Practices' to guide future research.”
Determinants of verification behavior in generative search: Evidence from a conjoint experiment
Knor, E. L., Reiss, M. V., Möller, J. E., & Merten, L. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101056 · Cited by 5
Markatou, M., Mukhopadhyay, R., Good, J., Tan, Y., Dharia, A., Kennedy, O., Brown, L. S., & Talal, A. H. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/97131
“In health care, transparency is one of the key requirements for LLM-based systems, which can then support the HITL framework to increase trust in the system [42].”
Ejiyi, C. J., Obiora, S. C., Obiora, I., Wauk, G., Ejiako, M. O., Omotayo, T., & Bamisile, O. (2026) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi18040196 · Cited by 2
Branchat: A Tree-Structured Interface for Efficient Revisitation in Long-Horizon LLM Conversations
Li, J., Qin, P., & Lee, Y. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798792 · Cited by 1
Waiting for GPT: Probing Interaction Patterns in High-Latency RAG Chatbots
Kothbauer, T., Probst, K., & Stöckl, A. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3799266 · Cited by 1
Third Workshop on Human-Centered Evaluation and Auditing of Language Models: AI Agents-in-the-Loop
van der Maden, W., Deng, W. H., Liu, Y. L., Jiang, H., Chen, V., Li, H., Kim, J., Liao, Q. V., Xu, W., Eslami, M., et al. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3778709
Self-citationChen, W., Kou, W., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798897
From Objects to Influences: Rethinking Deletion in Learning-Based Systems
Ryu, J., Song, H., Kim, J., Park, K., & Suh, B. (2026) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798494
Toward Digital Wisdom in General Education
Xu, X. P. (2026) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-1133-1.ch006
Fede, G. D., Alrabie, L., & Andolina, S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-95-3658-0_49 · Cited by 1
Beyond Engagement: A Human-Centered Evaluation Framework for LLM-Powered Recommender Systems
Balasubramanian, S. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774905.3794667
“…research increasingly explores LLM-driven and agent-based recommendation paradigms, evaluation practices that rely solely on engagement metrics become even less appropriate, as they fail to assess properties such as trans-parency, controllability, reliability, and alignment with user goals [3, 5].”
Balasubramanian, S. (2026) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3774905.3794675
“…research increasingly explores LLM-driven and agent-based recommendation paradigms, evaluation practices that rely solely on engagement metrics become even less appropriate, as they fail to assess properties such as trans-parency, controllability, reliability, and alignment with user goals [3, 5].”
Hsu, F.-Y., Liu, S.-C., Mei, K.-Q., & Chang, Y.-J. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3813044
“Similarly, Liao et al. emphasize that transparency should not be reduced to technical disclosures alone, but should also account for the human-centered dimension —addressing diverse user needs, supporting accountability, and fostering meaningful understanding across stakeholders [29].”
Mokhberi, M., Das, D., Saha, P., Ahmed, S. I., & Mim, N. J. (2026) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3800645.3812939
“In parallel, responsible interaction design urges designers to make AI’s role transparent and legible [70, 75, 104].”
Qamar, S., Fatima, R., & Khalid, Z. (2026) · Journal of Regional Studies Review · doi:10.62843/jrsr/2026.5a190
Thinking Outside the Black Box: Seven Guidelines for GenAI Use in the Ecological Sciences
Ferrari, N. C., Conklin, E. E., Fitch, A., Gannon, D. G., Macedo, R., Place, A., Sachs, H. R., Seo, E., Weldy, M. J., & Betts, M. G. (2026) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.74118
“…discovery and retrieval can be made easier by these tools, many online data repositories may lack the documentation needed to understand sampling constraints, making information on the original study design difficult or impossible to recover via automated retrieval (Liao and Wortman Vaughan 2024).”
Sousa, D., Gama, S. P., & Pires, A. C. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3773077.3812128
Zhou, S. (2026) · ACM International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC) · doi:10.1145/3773077.3812142
“Recent work on generative AI systems further suggests that explanation format, not just content, shapes how users calibrate trust, particularly when outputs are lengthy or multi-step [8].”
White, T., Pae, R., Hoerst, C., Stuart, A., Abbey, R., Skryabina, E., Brooks, S. K., Bondaronek, P., & Cattarino, L. (2026) · medRxiv · doi:10.64898/2026.06.19.26356035
Connelly, L. C., Pedersen, T. M., Øvlisen, K., Bilstrup, K.-E. K., Petersen, M. G., & Nyrup, R. (2026) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3805689.3812233
“This framing aligns with the notions of relative and sufficient faithfulness [34, 41] outlined in subsection 2.1, but grounds this in observable consequences for participants’ practices.”
InfluentialWasi, A. T., Heidari, O. R., Anam, M. U., Rahman, A., Agarwal, A., Patel, H. L., Kumar, B., Rafi, T. H., & Chae, D. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-1947-6_48
Margondai, A., Willox, S., Diaz, A. A., Rader, J., Hani, S., Ezcurra, V., & Mouloua, M. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30044-7_7 · Cited by 1
Zeng, Y., & Chen, J. (2026) · Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory · doi:10.1007/s10588-026-09430-y
“The article, (Liao et al. 2023), describes the significance of transparency in LLMs by focusing on a human-oriented method to help various stakeholders in the understanding process.”
Evaluation of an AI-Aided Document Framework for Certification of Novel Aircraft Propulsion Systems
Stoppa, S., Katabathula, D. S. S., & Frank, R. (2026) · EASN International Conference on Innovation in Aviation & Space Towards Sustainability Today & Tomorrow · doi:10.3390/engproc2026133202
Singh, N. P., Wang, X., Garikipati, A., Ciobanu, M., Mao, Q., & Das, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1851993
“…in education; when compared with commercial models, they allow for easier fine-tuning for specific requirements (e.g., pedagogy), which enables the creation of more affordable customized tools that can adapt dynamically to individual learner needs (Perczel et al., 2025; Yan et al.,…”
Möhle, M. H., Zall, M., Thorwart-Gumpert, T., Elbert, N., Thiesse, F., & Flath, C. M. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30860-3_30
Enhancing University Services and Governance With Self-Reflective Agentic AI
Tamizharasan, A., & Kanishka, S. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-7665-3.ch008
Practice-Specific GenAI in University Learning: An Activity Theory and Usability Perspective
Ploug, R., Marchetti, E., Sandu, D.-A., & Frandsen, T. F. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30784-2_4
Putting the User First: A User-Centered Approach to AI System Evaluation
Breeland, N. R., Whritner, J. A., Yu, C. S. P., Ahuja, A., & Kelly, R. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-30552-7_31
AI-Driven Knowledge Engineering for the Advancement of Modular Prosthetic Legs
Bi, Z., Hissim, M. E., Villapando, G. A., Li, M., Mueller, D. W., & Abu-Mulaweh, H. I. (2026) · Actuators · doi:10.3390/act15070403
Liao, M., & Sundar, S. S. (2026) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmag012 · Cited by 3
Bini, G., & Quattrociocchi, W. (2026) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-026-03227-y · Cited by 1
Dewies, M., & Reisch, L. A. (2026) · Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik · doi:10.1515/pwp-2026-0034
Sonni, A. F., Putri, V. C. C., & Amal, M. I. (2026) · Cogent Social Sciences · doi:10.1080/23311886.2026.2717899
Gupta, D. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-2600-0408-1.ch009
Viitanen, K., & Heikkilä, J. (2026) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2026.107427
Metadata
- Authors
- Liao, Q. V., & Vaughan, J. W.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft Research New York City (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Issue
- Special Issue 5
- ISSN
- 2644-2353 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.01941
- OpenAlex
- W4392297945
- Semantic Scholar
- 3dcf2db20082b480c6c091eea025465cc4fe57a6
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 85 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 12
- FWCI
- 29.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Harvard Data Science Review (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Safety Systems Engineering in Autonomy
- Keywords
- AI transparency, large language models, responsible AI, human-centered design, explanation, uncertainty communication, stakeholder needs, human-computer interaction, research roadmap
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
