mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Epistemic Transfer in AI-Assisted Verification: A Framework and Evaluation Protocol

arXiv 2608.08882 ↗First posted 9 Aug 2026cs.HC cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI tools can improve claim judgments while leaving open what users can do later without them. This paper develops an evaluation framework for epistemic transfer: the effect of prior AI-assisted verification on delayed judgments of novel claims under a specified access regime. The contribution is a verification-specific synthesis of learning, transfer, and human--AI evaluation, organized around two complementary estimands. The Epistemic Transfer Effect (ETE) compares delayed performance after alternative practice conditions. Tool-Removal Cost (TRC) compares immediate performance with and without assistance after practice; despite its name, it measures a current availability effect, not skill loss or psychological dependence. The proposed randomized protocol includes answer-first and evidence-first interfaces, active practice, a no-additional-practice comparator, and held-out claims. It specifies how to account for learning opportunities introduced by assessment, elicit confidence probabilities, average model predictions over a target population, and handle attrition and uncertainty. Reading ETE and TRC together distinguishes relative capability gains, equivalence, transfer penalties, and unresolved outcomes. A ``verification-on-loan'' profile is explicitly comparator-relative and cannot be inferred from a nonsignificant delayed contrast. A brief illustration from a two-wave verification study shows why these distinctions matter: an uncertain delayed interface contrast and an ordered assisted--unassisted probe cannot establish a clean transfer profile. The framework makes a practical demand: when independent judgment matters, evaluate both what assistance contributes now and what prior use changes later.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Aug 2026.

Builds on

12 of 51 references.

References · 12

  1. 2018FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERificationcited by 1,362
  2. 2020Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Effect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Performancecited by 396
  3. 2021A Survey on Automated Fact-Checkingcited by 376
  4. 2023AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Webcited by 144
  5. 2022Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance on AI Systems During Decision-Makingcited by 111
  6. 2024When combinations of humans and AI are useful: A systematic review and meta-analysiscited by 100
  7. 2022Do People Engage Cognitively with AI? Impact of AI Assistance on Incidental Learningcited by 53
  8. 2023Fact-checking information from large language models can decrease headline discernmentcited by 22
  9. 2026How AI Impacts Skill Formationcited by 20
  10. 2024Contrastive Explanations That Anticipate Human Misconceptions Can Improve Human Decision-Making Skillscited by 11
  11. 2026AI Assistance Reduces Persistence and Hurts Independent Performancecited by 7
  12. 2025Dialogues with AI Reduce Beliefs in Misinformation but Build No Lasting Discernment Skillscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.