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 201–210 of 210
Digital empowerment-oriented intelligent interaction mechanism design
Dong, S. (2026) · International Conference on Innovation Management and Information Systems (ICIMIS) · doi:10.1145/3821966.3822040
Tao, J., & Zhou, L. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-026-10815-2
Why we believe chatbots: trust calibration as a design problem
Jaidka, K., & Cai, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1935527 · Cited by 1
“Slack’s AI summaries state which sources informed them, and Bing Chat offers expandable citation panels that let users trace claims to documents (Liao and Vaughan, 2024).”
Human-Centric Auditing of AI-Powered Generative Search: When Citations Diverge from Rankings
Cheng, C.-Y. (2026) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-026-10813-4
Gallardo, A., Klucinec, L., Bauer, L., & Cranor, L. F. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3817022
Balayn, A., Rancourt, F., Casati, F., & Gadiraju, U. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3816909
“…notions of transparency, explainability, and literacy in AI testify to this: they are well-spread in both research and policy documents [7, 11, 19, 57, 71, 79, 96, 105, 111], they are being adapted to LLM systems [82, 91, 92, 99], and their common denominator is knowledge for responsible AI.”
Kim, S., Kim, H. M., Kim, K., & Zhu, D. (2026) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119855
Cordioli, L., & Pucci, E. (2026) · Companion Publication of the International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI Companion) · doi:10.1145/3776591.3833848
Müller, H., Steiger, D., Plass, M., & Holzinger, A. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2739758
Interactive and inspectable LLM planning for human-in-the-loop EV battery disassembly
Pedretti, M., Contreras, C. A., Stolkin, R., Rastegarpanah, A., & Pagani, R. (2026) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2026.1916454
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