What Else Do I Need to Know? The Effect of Background Information on Users' Reliance on QA Systems
Navita Goyal, Eleftheria Briakou, Amanda Liu, Connor Baumler, Claire Bonial, Jeffrey Micher, Clare R. Voss, Marine Carpuat, Hal Daumé III
Abstract
NLP systems have shown impressive performance at answering questions by retrieving relevant context. However, with the increasingly large models, it is impossible and often undesirable to constrain models' knowledge or reasoning to only the retrieved context. This leads to a mismatch between the information that the models access to derive the answer and the information that is available to the user to assess the model predicted answer. In this work, we study how users interact with QA systems in the absence of sufficient information to assess their predictions. Further, we ask whether adding the requisite background helps mitigate users' overreliance on predictions. Our study reveals that users rely on model predictions even in the absence of sufficient information needed to assess the model's correctness. Providing the relevant background, however, helps users better catch model errors, reducing over-reliance on incorrect predictions. On the flip side, background information also increases users' confidence in their accurate as well as inaccurate judgments. Our work highlights that supporting users' verification of QA predictions is an important, yet challenging, problem.
Ask Lune
Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.
Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.
Lune answers from
the full paper · 2 top-tier papers that cite it · related work
Free to start. No credit card required.
Cited by top-tier papers2
- What the Harm? Quantifying the Tangible Impact of Gender Bias in Machine Translation with a Human-centered StudyBeatrice Savoldi, Sara Papi, Matteo Negri, Ana Guerberof Arenas et al.EMNLP 2024 · 1 citation
- Arguments that Alter Minds: LLM Rationales Sway Human (and LLM) Notions of PlausibilityShramay Palta, Peter Rankel, Sarah Wiegreffe, Rachel RudingerACL 2026
Builds on9
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingZana Buçinca, Maja Barbara Malaya, Krzysztof Z. GajosCSCW 2021 · 962 citations
- Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team PerformanceGagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok et al.CHI 2021 · 713 citations
- Interpreting Interpretability: Understanding Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine LearningHarmanpreet Kaur, Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Rich Caruana et al.CHI 2020 · 541 citations
- Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-MakingHelena Vasconcelos, Matthew Jörke, Madeleine Grunde-McLaughlin, Tobias Gerstenberg et al.CSCW 2023 · 362 citations
Related papers
- Fostering Appropriate Reliance on Large Language Models: The Role of Explanations, Sources, and InconsistenciesSunnie S. Y. Kim, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Q. Vera Liao, Tania Lombrozo et al.CHI 2025 · 118 citations
- Entailer: Answering Questions with Faithful and Truthful Chains of ReasoningOyvind Tafjord, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Peter ClarkEMNLP 2022 · 28 citations
- To Rely or Not to Rely? Evaluating Interventions for Appropriate Reliance on Large Language ModelsJessica Y. Bo, Sophia Wan, Ashton AndersonCHI 2025 · 31 citations
- Knowledge-Augmented Language Model VerificationJinheon Baek, Soyeong Jeong, Minki Kang, Jong C. Park et al.EMNLP 2023 · 12 citations
- A Diachronic Perspective on User Trust in AI under UncertaintyShehzaad Dhuliawala, Vilém Zouhar, Mennatallah El-Assady, Mrinmaya SachanEMNLP 2023 · 7 citations
