PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Informatics· 2026Q1

A Criteria-Governed Human-in-the-Loop Information System Architecture for Explainable AI-Assisted Learning and Preliminary Assessment

С.Ж. Жакыпбеков, Artem A. Bykov, V. A. Yеrmakova, Aliya Zhuginissova et al.

Short summary

A novel human-in-the-loop information system architecture integrates AI-assisted learning with response assessment, featuring a retrieval-augmented assistant and an AI examiner that scores criterion-by-criterion, storing decisions with evidence and provenance.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Presents a human-in-the-loop information system architecture for AI-assisted learning and response assessment.
  • System includes a retrieval-augmented assistant and an AI examiner that scores criterion-by-criterion.
  • Each AI decision is stored with evidence, provenance, uncertainty, and verification status.
  • Preliminary assessment showed 100% evidence coverage and alignment with programmatic aggregation.
  • AI calibration correlated with human raters (r=0.75) but scored spoken answers 22 points lower.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

This paper presents a criteria-governed, human-in-the-loop information system architecture integrating formative AI-assisted learning with preliminary assessment of spoken and written responses. It supports two modes: a retrieval-augmented assistant answering from course materials and an AI examiner scoring responses against a predefined rubric, criterion by criterion. The language model is confined to analysis: evidence extraction, aggregation, input-quality control, uncertainty estimation and escalation are performed by a controlled pipeline, and each result is stored as a structured decision object carrying criteria, evidence, provenance, uncertainty and teacher-verification status. Across 168 examination sessions and 1074 criterion-level decisions, every decision carried a verbatim evidence passage (100% coverage), the overall score matched the programmatic aggregation in all finalized sessions, 39.1% of responses were routed for secondary analysis and 5.4% of sessions were escalated. A survey of 52 students rated question clarity 4.81, criterion-level feedback 4.46, and allotted time 4.42, while concerns persisted about scoring reliability and recognition errors. In a preliminary blind calibration, the AI ranked 13 spoken answers like human raters (r = 0.75), but scored them 22 points lower. The contribution is the architecture and its feasibility in deployment; the study does not establish automated-scoring accuracy, and final decisions remain with the teacher.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Informatics, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Information Systems

Information SystemsComputer Science