跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 15:32 — 2026-11-04 15:32(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.35483

Visible Reasoning: User-Facing Decision Transparency for Generative AI Systems

Sanjay Krishna Anbalagan, Xinrui Nie, Anughna Kommalapati, Vijay Kumar Kanamarlapudi, Sreekanth Radhakrishnan, Xiaodan Zhao, Umesh Mohan

Across multiple waves of computing, public trust in new technology has followed the emergence of governance mechanisms that made dominant risks legible and manageable. Generative AI shifts this pattern: these systems synthesize across heterogeneous sources, and users increasingly experience them as reasoning systems. The central question changes from "did it perform correctly?" to "can we trust how it arrived at its conclusion?" This paper introduces Filtered Decision Logs (FDLs), a user-facing transparency mechanism that makes decision formation visible without exposing raw chain-of-thought. FDLs pair each response with (i) a concise decision rationale, (ii) influence-ordered supporting data points derived from tool outputs, and (iii) relevance indicators showing which sources most shaped the conclusion. To operationalize evidence selection, we propose a trace-based method that reconstructs observability telemetry into a provenance tree and ranks evidence using four deterministic semantic and structural signals - Final Answer Similarity, Average Relevancy, Persistence, and Structural Proximity - combined via adaptive weighted scoring. We demonstrate FDLs across three domains: career advising (5 tools), investment analysis (4 tools), and travel planning (4 tools). In a formative evaluation with 50 participants (25 students, 25 working professionals in AI development), 92% rated the influence-ranked evidence as helpful for understanding and trusting the system's recommendation. Counterfactual tool-removal experiments confirm that removing the top-ranked source changes the answer more than removing a low-ranked source, validating that the ranking tracks decision dependence. We conclude that evidence-ranked transparency helps users identify misleading signals and missing context, enabling more confident acceptance, correction, or re-run of system decisions.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.HC
arXiv ↗PDF ↗