Knowing Is Not Enough: Information Retrievability as a Precondition to Effective LLM Oversight

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.01976v1
• Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2026 01:25:47 GMT
• Title: Knowing Is Not Enough: Information Retrievability as a Precondition to Effective LLM Oversight
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in organizational work, yet their errors often pass human review.<n>We develop an alternative, retrieval-based account of human oversight.<n>We show that self-generated explanations improve error detection and strengthen recall of verification-relevant reasoning.
• Score: 1.4891975420982513
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in organizational work, yet their errors often pass human review. Prior research locates such failures in users' capability to review LLM output or their engagement in doing so. We develop an alternative, retrieval-based account of human oversight and posit that error detection is more effective when oversight-relevant information is accessible to users at the moment of review. Across two randomized lab-in-the-field experiments with 640 customer-facing employees, we show that self-generated explanations improve error detection and strengthen recall of verification-relevant reasoning, while cues that reactivate such reasoning help sustain detection under repeated LLM use. Theoretically, we identify information retrievability as a distinct precondition for effective oversight and specify generative encoding and cue-supported reactivation as mechanisms that build and sustain it. Practically, lightweight onboarding self-explanations and daily retrieval cues can make human oversight more resilient as LLM use becomes routine.

Related papers

• Beyond the Traceback: Using LLMs for Adaptive Explanations of Programming Errors [52.619793817715326]
  We present a multi-stage crowdsourced study evaluating skill-targeted, LLM-generated Python error messages.<n>We show that while LLM-rewritten messages significantly improved subjective evaluations, these perceived gains did not translate into statistically significant improvements in objective debug performance.<n>This highlights a critical human-AI complementarity gap: explanations that feel better to users do not necessarily make them more effective debuggers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T09:14:28Z)
• Scalable and Robust LLM Unlearning by Correcting Responses with Retrieved Exclusions [49.55618517046225]
  Language models trained on web-scale corpora risk memorizing and exposing sensitive information.<n>We propose Corrective Unlearning with Retrieved Exclusions (CURE), a novel unlearning framework.<n>CURE verifies model outputs for leakage and revises them into safe responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T09:07:45Z)
• Exploring the Impact of Instruction-Tuning on LLM's Susceptibility to Misinformation [3.032542495872679]
  We investigate the impact of instruction-tuning on large language models' susceptibility to misinformation.<n>Our analysis reveals that instruction-tuned LLMs are significantly more likely to accept misinformation when it is presented by the user.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-24T08:58:47Z)
• Evaluating LLM-Contaminated Crowdsourcing Data Without Ground Truth [18.069595635842557]
  Large language models (LLMs) by crowdsourcing workers pose a challenge to datasets intended to reflect human input.<n>We propose a training-free scoring mechanism with theoretical guarantees under a crowdsourcing model that accounts for LLM collusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T04:38:39Z)
• Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and Inconsistencies [66.30619782227173]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce erroneous responses that sound fluent and convincing.<n>We identify several features of LLM responses that shape users' reliance.<n>We find that explanations increase reliance on both correct and incorrect responses.<n>We observe less reliance on incorrect responses when sources are provided or when explanations exhibit inconsistencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:35:41Z)
• Revealing and Mitigating the Challenge of Detecting Character Knowledge Errors in LLM Role-Playing [14.950721395944388]
  We propose RoleKE-Bench to evaluate LLMs' ability to detect errors in KKE and UKE.<n>The results indicate that even the latest LLMs struggle to detect these two types of errors effectively.<n>We propose an agent-based reasoning method, Self-Recollection and Self-Doubt, to explore further the potential for improving error detection capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-18T06:21:44Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning [55.76083560152823]
  SelfCheck is a general-purpose zero-shot verification schema for recognizing errors in step-by-step reasoning. We test SelfCheck on three datasets (GSM8K, MathQA, and MATH) and find that it successfully recognizes errors and, in turn, increases final answer accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T10:31:36Z)

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.