Improving Human Verification of LLM Reasoning through Interactive Explanation Interfaces
Authors
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. While there are a plethora of works showing the effectiveness of LLMs in generating step-by-step solutions through chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning on reasoning benchmarks, little is understood about whether the generated CoT is helpful for end-users in improving their ability to comprehend mathematical reasoning problems and detect errors/hallucinations in LLM-generated solutions. To address this gap and contribute to understanding 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), and a novel framework that generates the LLM's reasoning from traditional CoT to alternative, interactive formats. Across 125 participants, we found that interactive interfaces significantly improved performance. Specifically, the iGraph interface yielded the highest clarity and error detection rate (85.6 %), followed by iPoT (82.5 %), iCoT (80.6 %), all outperforming standard CoT (73.5 %). Interactive interfaces also led to faster response times, where participants using iGraph were fastest (57.9 secs), compared to iCoT and iPoT (60 secs), and the standard CoT baseline (64.7 secs). Furthermore, participants preferred the iGraph reasoning interface, citing its superior ability to enable users to follow the LLM's reasoning process. We discuss the implications of these results and provide recommendations for the future design of reasoning models. The code and interfaces for this project can be found here: https://github.com/Runtaozhou/Interactive-CoT.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 86%
Criticality: Scaffolding Decision-Making with Interactive Critical Thinking and Evidence-Based Reasoning Traces
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +3
- 71%
Reporting and Reviewing LLM-Integrated Systems in HCI: Challenges and Considerations
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 71%
LLM or Human? Perceptions of Trust and Quality in Research Summaries
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 71%
Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agents
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 71%
An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems
CHI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 71%
Accepted with Minor Revisions: Value of AI-Assisted Scientific Writing
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 71%
A Multimodal Investigation of Controllability and Cognitive Load in Interactive Machine Learning
IUI '26· Human-LLM Collaboration +2
- 67%
Relatedly: Scaffolding Literature Reviews with Existing Related Work Sections
CHI '23· Explainable AI (XAI) +1
- 67%
User Modelling for Avoiding Overfitting in Interactive Knowledge Elicitation for Prediction
IUI '18· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
- 67%
DxHF: Providing High-Quality Human Feedback for LLM Alignment with Interactive Decomposition
UIST '25· Human-LLM Collaboration +1
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)