Explore/agent app/Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews
C

MD Aidul Islam, Malik Abdul Sami, Muhammad Waseem, Zeeshan Rasheed, Kai-kristian Kemell, Zheying Zhang, Pekka Abrahamsson/Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature ReviewsUnknown

Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are essential for evidence-based research but remain time-consuming, requiring researchers to manage large volumes of publications across planning, screening, analysis, and reporting. Large language models (LLMs) can now produce fluent, well-structured review text, which makes it difficult to distinguish synthesis that was verified by a researcher from synthesis that merely appears authoritative. This raises the risk that unverified AI-generated synthesis enters the scholarly record carrying the credibility of a systematic review. We present CoSLR, a Human-AI collaborative multi-agent system that supports the SLR workflow through a modular three-phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and that places explicit, mandatory human checkpoints on the path between generated output and its acceptance. In a survey-based study with 63 participants, the system was received positively: 27 of 63 participants (42.9 percent) rated its usability highly, indicating that the mandatory checkpoints did not come at the cost of a workable interface. However, a checkpoint safeguards the review only if researchers use it to verify: 22 of 63 participants (34.9 percent) reported that they would trust AI-generated summaries and reports without additional human checking after only a short interaction with the system. These findings indicate that Human-AI collaboration can support literature review work, but that the effectiveness of human oversight depends on whether users are willing to exercise it. This is a calibration problem that interface design must address directly, not assume.

agent app
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 7h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed7h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
not enough history
Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at
inactivepushed
not enough history
not enough history
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

O
OccuReward: LLM-Guided Occupant-Centric Reward Shaping for Demographic Equity in Grid-Interactive Buildings
0 · agent app
55
C
ClinAgent: A ReAct-Based Agent for Conversational Access to Clinical Trial Information
0 · agent app
55
U
Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents
0 · agent app
55
S
SysEvolve: An AI-native, safe, autonomous adversarial attack-defense co-evolutionary system
0 · agent app
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler7h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing