mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Can Agents Judge Systematic Reviews Like Humans? Evaluating SLRs with LLM-based Multi-Agent System

arXiv 2509.17240 ↗First posted 21 Sep 2025cs.AI cs.CL cs.LGcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are foundational to evidence-based research but remain labor-intensive and prone to inconsistency across disciplines. We present an LLM-based SLR evaluation copilot built on a Multi-Agent System (MAS) architecture to assist researchers in assessing the overall quality of the systematic literature reviews. The system automates protocol validation, methodological assessment, and topic relevance checks using a scholarly database. Unlike conventional single-agent methods, our design integrates a specialized agentic approach aligned with PRISMA guidelines to support more structured and interpretable evaluations. We conducted an initial study on five published SLRs from diverse domains, comparing system outputs to expert-annotated PRISMA scores, and observed 84% agreement. While early results are promising, this work represents a first step toward scalable and accurate NLP-driven systems for interdisciplinary workflows and reveals their capacity for rigorous, domain-agnostic knowledge aggregation to streamline the review process.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 21 Sep 2025.

Builds on

8 of 33 references.

References · 8

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
  2. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
  3. 2025Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?cited by 604
  4. 2022Towards Human-centered Explainable AI: A Survey of User Studies for Model Explanationscited by 85
  5. 2025A Comprehensive Survey on Multi-Agent Cooperative Decision-Making: Scenarios, Approaches, Challenges and Perspectivescited by 27
  6. 2023The Rise of the AI Co-Pilot: Lessons for Design from Aviation and Beyondcited by 15
  7. 2024Do LLMs suffer from Multi-Party Hangover? A Diagnostic Approach to Addressee Recognition and Response Selection in Conversationscited by 9
  8. 2025Do Language Model Agents Align with Humans in Rating Visualizations? An Empirical Studycited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024System for systematic literature review using multiple AI agents: Concept and an empirical evaluation
  2. 2025LatteReview: A Multi-Agent Framework for Systematic Review Automation Using Large Language Models
  3. 2026Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews
  4. 2025LiRA: A Multi-Agent Framework for Reliable and Readable Literature Review Generation
  5. 2026meta-pipe: An LLM-agent pipeline for end-to-end automated systematic review and meta-analysis
  6. 2026Evaluating AI-based Scientific Knowledge Synthesis with Epidemiological Systematic Reviews
  7. 2026LUMEN: Cost-Transparent Multi-Agent Pipeline for Automated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  8. 2025Completing A Systematic Review in Hours instead of Months with Interactive AI Agents