Knowing Is Not Enough: Information Retrievability as a Precondition to Effective LLM Oversight

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in organizational work, yet their errors often pass human review. Prior research locates such failures in users' capability to review LLM output or their engagement in doing so. We develop an alternative, retrieval-based account of human oversight and posit that error detection is more effective when oversight-relevant information is accessible to users at the moment of review. Across two randomized lab-in-the-field experiments with 640 customer-facing employees, we show that self-generated explanations improve error detection and strengthen recall of verification-relevant reasoning, while cues that reactivate such reasoning help sustain detection under repeated LLM use. Theoretically, we identify information retrievability as a distinct precondition for effective oversight and specify generative encoding and cue-supported reactivation as mechanisms that build and sustain it. Practically, lightweight onboarding self-explanations and daily retrieval cues can make human oversight more resilient as LLM use becomes routine.

Do large language models scrutinise what they review? A multimodal audit of scoring calibration, error detection, and author-identity effects

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate peer reviews, prompting examination of their capacity for critical evaluation. This study evaluates two multimodal LLMs, Qwen2.5-VL-72B and Pixtral-Large-124B, as reviewers across 165 submissions to the 2026 International Conference on Learning Representations, a venue that postdates both models' training cutoffs. Manuscripts were presented to both models with author identities blinded, replaced with high-prestige affiliations, or replaced with low-prestige affiliations, and in either text-only or text-with-figure format. Additionally, 145 verifiably detectable errors were inserted into 55 manuscripts to assess error identification under natural and verification-oriented prompts. Across all manuscript groups, including rejected submissions, LLM scores ranged from 7.0 to 8.1, whereas human mean scores ranged from 3.4 to 6.8. The models detected 12.1\% of the verified errors under natural prompting, and a one-sentence verification instruction increased detection to 22.2\%; however, 78\% of the errors remained undetected. Providing figures reduced error detection while increasing review scores. No visual error was reliably verified against its corresponding figure, and half of the text-only reviews described figures that were not provided. Author identity did not influence either review scores or error detection. LLM editorial decisions exactly matched those produced by simple score averaging.