From Toil to Thought: Designing for Strategic Exploration and Responsible AI in Systematic Literature Reviews

Runlong Ye, Naaz Sibia, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy, Tingting Zhu, Carolina Nobre, Viktoria Pammer-Schindler, Michael Liut · Jan 21, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Open DOI Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) are fundamental to scientific progress, yet the process is hindered by a fragmented tool ecosystem that imposes a high cognitive load. This friction suppresses the iterative, exploratory nature of scholarly work. To investigate these challenges, we conducted an exploratory design study with 20 experienced researchers. This study identified key friction points: 1) the high cognitive load of managing iterative query refinement across multiple databases, 2) the overwhelming scale and pace of publication of modern literature, and 3) the tension between automation and scholarly agency. Informed by these findings, we developed ARC, a design probe that operationalizes solutions for multi-database integration, transparent iterative search, and verifiable AI-assisted screening. A comparative user study with 8 researchers suggests that an integrated environment facilitates a transition in scholarly work, moving researchers from managing administrative overhead to engaging in strategic exploration. By utilizing external representations to scaffold strategic exploration and transparent AI reasoning, our system supports verifiable judgment, aiming to augment expert contributions from initial creation through long-term maintenance of knowledge synthesis.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.