← All research
CHI EA 2026Published

How do people work through evidence to decide whether to rely on AI?

An exploratory study follows how people inspect, revisit, and interpret evidence while evaluating an AI-generated answer.

01020304Inspect evidenceInterpretJudgeRevisitTrust is a process.Check. Interpret. Reconsider.

Conceptual summary of the verification loop, based on the CHI EA 2026 paper.

01 / The approach

Study design

We hold the AI-generated answer constant while varying how people access supporting evidence across three transparency conditions. An exploratory mixed-methods pilot with three medically trained participants combines interaction logs, semi-structured interviews, and qualitative analysis.

Inside the paper

Transparency meets a person’s verification process.

Enlarge
Original Figure 1: biomedical QA limitations on the left, a loop between information foraging and sensemaking in the center, and system-side transparency, interpretability, and explainability on the right, leading toward user trust.

The conceptual framework places information foraging and sensemaking on the user side. Interface transparency supports that process; it does not directly determine whether an answer should be trusted.

Follow the loop

People seek evidence, interpret it, and return for more. The central loop is the organizing idea of the paper.

Read it as a framework

The three-participant pilot explores this process. The diagram is a conceptual account, not an estimated causal model.

Ryu et al. · CHI EA 2026 · Figure 1, reproduced unchanged. Paper ↗ CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 ↗

Transparency meets a person’s verification process.

Original Figure 1: biomedical QA limitations on the left, a loop between information foraging and sensemaking in the center, and system-side transparency, interpretability, and explainability on the right, leading toward user trust.

Ryu et al. · CHI EA 2026 · Figure 1, reproduced unchanged. Open image ↗

02 / What we found

Findings

The pilot illustrates how the structure of evidence access shapes verification. Participants selectively inspected specific evidence, revisited claims, and deferred or rejected answers when support appeared incomplete. These observations motivate treating trust as an ongoing process of checking and interpretation.

Scope & limitations

This is a three-participant exploratory pilot around a single verification-critical question. It supports a conceptual account and study design, rather than population-level claims or statistical conclusions about clinicians.

Further questions

How should an AI communicate what it has verified, what remains uncertain, and when a person’s judgment is needed?

Research directions
Publication details

Can Transparency Help Clinicians Trust AI? Reframing Trust as an Information Foraging and Sensemaking Loop

Kunhee Ryu, Heeyoung (Emily) Ghang, Sechang Chon, Keeheon Lee, and Younah Kang

CHI EA 2026 · Published

BibTeX citation
@inproceedings{ryu2026transparency,
  title={Can Transparency Help Clinicians Trust AI? Reframing Trust as an Information Foraging and Sensemaking Loop},
  author={Ryu, Kunhee and Ghang, Heeyoung and Chon, Sechang and Lee, Keeheon and Kang, Younah},
  booktitle={Extended Abstracts of CHI 2026},
  year={2026},
  doi={10.1145/3772363.3798817}
}
Next paperCooperation among agents with different priorities