Verification Without Distrust: Reframing User-Side Oversight as Routine Epistemic Governance in Everyday Human-Chatbot Interaction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.24761v1
• Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 14:12:11 GMT
• Title: Verification Without Distrust: Reframing User-Side Oversight as Routine Epistemic Governance in Everyday Human-Chatbot Interaction
• Abstract summary: We find no detectable association between trust and verification in everyday human-chatbot interaction.<n>Three further user-side practices - refinement, correction, and approval before automated actions - are widely endorsed and positively associated with satisfaction.<n>A medium-to-large satisfaction-control gap shows that effective task outcomes do not produce a felt sense of agency.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Research on human-AI interaction has long framed verification of system outputs as a trust-contingent behavior that better-calibrated trust should reduce. We test this assumption in everyday human-chatbot interaction through a mixed-methods survey of 153 frequent chatbot users. Contrary to the canonical prediction, we find no detectable association between trust and verification, with the result robust across sensitivity analyses. Three further user-side practices - refinement, correction, and approval before automated actions - are widely endorsed and positively associated with satisfaction. The data reveal a substantive distinction between evaluative oversight (trust-decoupled, weakly tied to satisfaction) and interventionist oversight (weakly trust-correlated, strongly tied to satisfaction). A medium-to-large satisfaction-control gap shows that effective task outcomes do not produce a felt sense of agency. Qualitative findings identify instrumental mental models, failure-mode-specific doubt, and demand for epistemic infrastructure. We reframe user-side oversight as routine epistemic governance compatible with trust, and derive four design directions for scaffolded oversight in conversational AI.

Related papers

• The Governance of Human-LLM Interaction: Safety Gating, Civility Steering, and Affective Default Lock-In [0.9558392439655014]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly mediate high-stakes interactions in finance, medicine, and mental-health support.<n>We frame interaction style as a governance object: provider-side alignment blocks harmful content, but stabilizes communicative defaults.<n>We show that prompt steerability and regression-to-default are observable indicators of provider control over communicative form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-06T13:36:37Z)
• IMPACT-HOI: Supervisory Control for Onset-Anchored Partial HOI Event Construction [72.51952455865155]
  We present IMPACT-HOI, a mixed-initiative framework for annotating egocentric procedural video.<n> IMPACT-HOI frames this task as the incremental resolution of a partially specified, onset-anchored event state.<n>A user study with 9 participants shows a 13.5% reduction in manual annotation actions, a 46.67% event match rate, and zero confirmed-field violations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-03T01:37:40Z)
• Co-FactChecker: A Framework for Human-AI Collaborative Claim Verification Using Large Reasoning Models [99.26398772227684]
  We propose Co-FactChecker, a framework for human-AI collaborative claim verification.<n>Co-FactChecker translates expert feedback into trace-edits that introduce targeted modifications to the trace.<n>Human evaluations show that Co-FactChecker is preferred over multi-turn dialogue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-15T10:35:00Z)
• When Visibility Outpaces Verification: Delayed Verification and Narrative Lock-in in Agentic AI Discourse [2.5424331328233207]
  Agentic AI systems-autonomous entities capable of independent planning and execution-reshape the landscape of human-AI trust.<n>This paper investigates the interplay between social proof and verification timing in online discussions of agentic AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T22:30:12Z)
• Why do we Trust Chatbots? From Normative Principles to Behavioral Drivers [9.407740029262124]
  We argue that the coexistence of competing notions of "trust" under a shared term obscures important distinctions between psychological trust formation and normative trustworthiness.<n>Addressing this gap requires further research and stronger support mechanisms to help users appropriately calibrate trust in conversational AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T14:21:01Z)
• Althea: Human-AI Collaboration for Fact-Checking and Critical Reasoning [26.796186521236194]
  We introduce Althea, a retrieval-augmented system that integrates question generation, evidence retrieval, and structured reasoning to support user-driven evaluation of online claims.<n>On the AVeriTeC benchmark, Althea achieves a Macro-F1 of 0.44, outperforming standard verification pipelines and improving discrimination between supported and refuted claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T18:23:35Z)
• BrowseConf: Confidence-Guided Test-Time Scaling for Web Agents [58.05949210993854]
  We investigate whether search agents have the ability to communicate their own confidence through verbalized confidence scores after long sequences of actions.<n>We propose Test-Time Scaling (TTS) methods that use confidence scores to determine answer quality, encourage the model to try again until reaching a satisfactory confidence level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T15:58:51Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under Uncertainty [52.44939679369428]
  Modern NLP systems are often uncalibrated, resulting in confidently incorrect predictions that undermine user trust. We study the evolution of user trust in response to trust-eroding events using a betting game.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T14:41:46Z)
• On the Robustness of ChatGPT: An Adversarial and Out-of-distribution Perspective [67.98821225810204]
  We evaluate the robustness of ChatGPT from the adversarial and out-of-distribution perspective. Results show consistent advantages on most adversarial and OOD classification and translation tasks. ChatGPT shows astounding performance in understanding dialogue-related texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T11:01:20Z)
• Comparing Psychometric and Behavioral Predictors of Compliance During Human-AI Interactions [5.893351309010412]
  A common hypothesis in adaptive AI research is that minor differences in people's predisposition to trust can significantly impact their likelihood of complying with recommendations from the AI. We benchmark a popular measure of this kind against behavioral predictors of compliance. This suggests a general property that individual differences in initial behavior are more predictive than differences in self-reported trust attitudes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-03T16:56:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.