arXiv preprint ·
Errors of LLM-Assisted Literature Retrieval in Environmental Science: A Comparison Study of Abstract versus Full-text Based Prompts
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for literature search and synthesis. However, it is unclear whether they retrieve accurate bibliographic information in environmental science. Therefore, we quantitatively compared the errors of widely used LLM platforms in retrieving references related to original articles from five leading environmental science journals (Energy and Environmental Science, Nature Sustainability, Nature Climate Change, Lancet Planetary Health, and Environmental Science and Technology) published in 2024 to 2025. Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, DeepSeek, Perplexity, and Gemini were used as the LLM platforms. LLMs retrieved 10 references for each of the 50 randomly selected original article using either the article's abstract or its full-text as prompt. The retrieved references were subject to a multimetric score ratio combining validity of bibliographic data, Google Scholar link, digital object identifier, Scopus Electronic Identifier and relevance score (cited by or being the index paper), and the proportion of complete fabrication that failed all metrics. Abstract-only prompt yielded significantly higher accuracy than full-text one. This advantage was confirmed in multilevel mixed-effect multivariable regression after adjusting for journal, platform, and output order. Source journal and the position of a reference within the output list were also independently associated with retrieval accuracy, with lower-listed references associated with lower accuracy. These findings suggest that LLM assisted literature retrieval in environmental science remains moderately accurate and overall inconsistent, varying significantly by platform, journal, prompt type, and output position. Abstract-based prompting, as task-aligned information compression, may outperform full-text one in literature retrieval. Caution should be used when generalizing our findings.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Digital Libraries
Wieszcz-XIX: A 3.1-Billion-Word Corpus of Pre-1918 Polish and Temporally Bounded Language Models Trained From Scratch
Agentic schema-guided extraction of materials process knowledge from scientific literature
SAIL: Scientific Agentic Intelligence via a Science-Aware Loop
CroissantMiner: Automated Extraction and Validation of Croissant Metadata for ML Datasets
Large Language Model Turnover Undermines Screening for Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Scientific Writing
Get the few papers worth your time in Digital Libraries every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.