Improving Human Verification of LLM Reasoning through Interactive Explanation Interfaces

TL;DR

This paper introduces three interactive interfaces for LLM reasoning explanations, significantly enhancing user ability to detect errors and understand reasoning processes in educational and problem-solving contexts.

Contribution

The paper presents novel interactive reasoning interfaces—iCoT, iPoT, and iGraph—that improve human comprehension and error detection in LLM-generated reasoning chains.

Findings

iGraph achieves 85.6% error detection accuracy

Interactive interfaces reduce validation time to around 58 seconds

Users prefer iGraph for its clarity and followability

Abstract

The reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to their increasing employment in several critical applications, particularly education, where they support problem-solving, tutoring, and personalized study. Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning capabilities [1, 2] are well-known to help LLMs decompose a problem into steps and explore the solution spaces more effectively, leading to impressive performance on mathematical and reasoning benchmarks. As the length of CoT tokens per question increases substantially to even thousands of tokens per question [ 1], it is unknown how users could comprehend LLM reasoning and detect errors or hallucinations. To address this problem and understand how reasoning can improve human-AI interaction, we present three new interactive reasoning interfaces: interactive CoT (iCoT), interactive Program-of-Thought (iPoT), and interactive Graph (iGraph). That is, we ask LLMs themselves to generate an interactive web interface wrapped around the original CoT content, which may be presented in text (iCoT), graphs (iGraph) or code (iPoT). This interface allows users to interact with and provide a novel experience in reading and validating the reasoning chains of LLMs. Across a study of 125 participants, interactive interfaces significantly improve user performance. Specifically, iGraph users score the highest error detection rate (85.6%), followed by iPoT (82.5%), iCoT (80.6%), all outperforming standard CoT (73.5%). Interactive interfaces also lead to faster user validation time-iGraph users are faster (57.9 secs per question) than the users of iCoT and iPoT (60 secs) and the standard CoT (64.7 secs). A post-study questionnaire shows that users prefer iGraph, citing its superior ability to enable them to follow the LLM's reasoning. We discuss the implications of these results and provide recommendations for the future design of reasoning models.