Sitong Pan

Mauricio Villavicencio, Sitong Pan, Qianwen Wang

Despite warnings that LLMs can make mistakes, users often develop inappropriate trust and accept incorrect answers without critical evaluation. Uncertainty quantification (UQ), displaying LLMs' confidence, has emerged as a promising approach to calibrate user trust. However, prior empirical studies on uncertainty communication have treated uncertainty as a single numerical score or simple natural language expression. This simplification fails to capture a key property of LLM outputs: a single response often comprises multiple claims and reasoning steps, each with distinct levels of uncertainty. To address this gap, this study investigates uncertainty granularity (i.e., the extent to which uncertainty is expressed at different levels within an LLM response) and examines its impact on LLM-assisted decision-making. We conducted a large-scale, between-subjects study (N=192) in which participants answered medical questions using LLMs that displayed uncertainty at three different granularities: output-level (entire response), relation-level (individual reasoning steps), and token-level (specific words). Our findings reveal distinct behavioral effects as a function of uncertainty granularity. Token-level uncertainty increased users' agreement with the AI, whereas output- and relation-level uncertainty did not increase agreement but instead reduced users' confidence in their own answers. Notably, relation-level uncertainty also reduced external verification (i.e., internet searches, checking provided URLs), steering users away from independent fact-checking and toward reliance on the LLM and its accompanying uncertainty cues. Our findings demonstrate that uncertainty granularity significantly shapes how users interact with and verify LLM outputs, providing concrete design guidance for building responsible LLM applications that encourage appropriate skepticism and verification behaviors.

Yuan Tian, Chuhan Zhang, Xiaotong Wang et al.

Creating data reports is a labor-intensive task involving iterative data exploration, insight extraction, and narrative construction. A key challenge lies in composing the analysis logic-from defining objectives and transforming data to identifying and communicating insights. Manually crafting this logic can be cognitively demanding. While experienced analysts often reuse scripts from past projects, finding a perfect match for a new dataset is rare. Even when similar analyses are available online, they usually share only results or visualizations, not the underlying code, making reuse difficult. To address this, we present ReSpark, a system that leverages large language models (LLMs) to reverse-engineer analysis logic from existing reports and adapt it to new datasets. By generating draft analysis steps, ReSpark provides a warm start for users. It also supports interactive refinement, allowing users to inspect intermediate outputs, insert objectives, and revise content. We evaluate ReSpark through comparative and user studies, demonstrating its effectiveness in lowering the barrier to generating data reports without relying on existing analysis code.