# Checkpoints Are Not Enough: Trust Calibration in CoSLR, a Human-AI System for Systematic Literature Reviews

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22248 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.22248/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 34 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Seven Failure Points When Engineering a Retrieval Augmented Generation System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05856/) (2024)
- [RAG-QA Arena: Evaluating Domain Robustness for Long-form Retrieval Augmented Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.13998/) (2024)
- [Zero-shot Generative Large Language Models for Systematic Review Screening Automation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06320/) (2024)
- [The Promise and Challenges of Using LLMs to Accelerate the Screening Process of Systematic Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.15667/) (2024)
- [Trust in Human-AI Interaction: Scoping Out Models, Measures, and Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.00189/) (2022)
- [PaperOrchestra: A Multi-Agent Framework for Automated AI Research Paper Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.05018/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.