PaperTrail: A Claim-Evidence Interface for Grounding Provenance in LLM-based Scholarly Q&A

Paper: 2602.21045 Authors: Anna Martin-Boyle, Cara A. C. Leckey, Martha C. Brown, Harmanpreet Kaur Categories: cs.HC, cs.CL

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly deployed in scholarly question-answering systems to help researchers synthesize literature at scale. However, these systems frequently produce subtle errors including unsupported claims and omissions that are difficult to detect with traditional citation-based provenance mechanisms. This paper introduces PaperTrail, an interface that decomposes both LLM-generated answers and source documents into atomic claims and evidence units, then maps them to reveal which assertions are supported, unsupported, or omitted. A within-subjects study with 26 researchers performing scholarly editing tasks found that while PaperTrail significantly reduced trust in LLM outputs compared to a baseline interface, this heightened skepticism did not change actual usage behavior—participants continued relying on LLM-generated content to avoid cognitively demanding verification work.

Key Contributions

• A novel claim-evidence decomposition interface that provides granular provenance tracking for LLM-generated scholarly content
• Empirical evidence from 26 researchers showing that increased transparency about LLM errors reduces trust but not reliance
• Design insights revealing the tension between cognitive burden and verification rigor in scholarly AI tools
• A framework for understanding how provenance information must be presented to actually influence researcher behavior

The Provenance Problem in Scholarly AI

Traditional citation mechanisms in LLM-based scholarly tools operate at the document level, linking entire papers to generated text. This granularity is insufficient for rigorous scholarly verification, where researchers need to validate specific claims against precise evidence. The challenge is compounded by LLMs’ tendency to produce plausible-sounding but subtly incorrect content—hallucinated claims, misrepresented findings, or strategic omissions that preserve coherence while sacrificing accuracy.

PaperTrail addresses this by implementing a three-layer provenance model: (1) decomposing LLM outputs into atomic claims, (2) extracting corresponding evidence from source documents, and (3) establishing explicit mappings between claims and evidence. This granular approach makes visible three critical categories of LLM behavior: supported claims with clear evidence, unsupported claims lacking source backing, and omitted information present in sources but absent from the generated text.

Methodology and Study Design

The researchers conducted a within-subjects study where 26 participants (researchers and graduate students) performed two scholarly editing tasks. Each participant used both PaperTrail and a baseline interface with traditional document-level citations, with task order counterbalanced to control for learning effects.

The editing tasks involved reviewing LLM-generated text that synthesized research literature, then editing it for accuracy and completeness. The baseline interface presented source documents with standard citations, while PaperTrail displayed the claim-evidence decomposition with visual mappings showing support relationships. Both interfaces had access to identical source materials and LLM-generated content.

Researchers collected quantitative metrics including task completion time, edit counts, and trust ratings, alongside qualitative data from think-aloud protocols and post-task interviews. The study design specifically examined whether increased provenance transparency would translate into behavioral changes in how researchers interact with LLM-generated scholarly content.

Results: The Trust-Behavior Paradox

The study revealed a striking disconnect between trust and behavior. PaperTrail significantly reduced participants’ reported trust in LLM-generated content (p<0.01), with researchers expressing greater skepticism about claim accuracy when confronted with explicit evidence mappings. Participants could clearly identify unsupported claims and omissions using the interface.

However, this reduced trust did not translate into substantively different editing behavior. Participants using PaperTrail made only marginally more edits than those using the baseline interface, and the types of edits were similar across conditions. Most critically, participants continued to accept the majority of LLM-generated content even when PaperTrail explicitly flagged claims as unsupported.

Qualitative analysis revealed the mechanism behind this paradox: verification is cognitively expensive. Even when provided with tools that make errors visible, researchers opted to accept LLM outputs rather than engage in the demanding work of checking every claim against source evidence. As one participant noted, “I can see it’s probably wrong, but fixing it properly would take longer than just leaving it.”

Design Implications for Scholarly AI Tools

The findings suggest that simply providing more granular provenance information is necessary but insufficient for improving scholarly AI tool reliability. The research identifies several key design challenges:

Cognitive load management: Interfaces must present provenance information in ways that reduce rather than increase the mental effort required for verification. PaperTrail’s comprehensive claim-evidence mapping, while informative, may have overwhelmed users with too much information to process efficiently.

Actionable transparency: Provenance mechanisms should not just reveal problems but facilitate their resolution. Future designs might automatically suggest corrections for unsupported claims or highlight high-confidence evidence that contradicts LLM assertions.

Selective verification support: Rather than requiring users to verify everything, interfaces could use confidence scores or other signals to direct attention to claims most likely to be problematic, allowing researchers to allocate verification effort strategically.

Integration with scholarly workflows: Verification tools must fit naturally into existing research practices rather than requiring researchers to adopt entirely new workflows. The cognitive burden of verification may be reduced if it’s distributed across the research process rather than concentrated in a single editing phase.

Takeaways

1. Granular claim-evidence provenance tracking can successfully reduce trust in LLM-generated scholarly content, making errors and omissions visible to researchers.

2. Reduced trust does not automatically translate to changed behavior—researchers continue relying on LLM outputs even when aware of potential errors, primarily to avoid cognitive burden.

3. The tension between verification rigor and cognitive effort represents a fundamental challenge in designing scholarly AI tools that researchers will actually use as intended.

4. Effective provenance interfaces must go beyond transparency to actively reduce the cognitive cost of verification, potentially through automated correction suggestions or intelligent attention direction.

5. Future scholarly AI systems should consider distributing verification across research workflows rather than concentrating it in discrete editing phases, making rigorous checking more manageable.