Errors of LLM-Assisted Literature Retrieval in Environmental Science: A Comparison Study of Abstract versus Full-text Based Prompts

Authors:Yanjun Chen (1,2), Yongfeng Zhang (3), Lanjing Zhang (1, 3, 4, 5, 6) (1 Department of Chemical Biology, Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. 2 East Brunswick High School, East Brunswick, NJ. 3 Department of Computer Science, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ. 4 Department of Pathology, Princeton Medical Center, Plainsboro, NJ. 5 Department of Pharmacology, Physiology, and Neuroscience, New Jersey Medical School, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ. 6 Rutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ.)

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.

Digital Libraries (cs.DL); Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Applications (stat.AP); Methodology (stat.ME)

arXiv:2610.05690 [cs.DL]

(or arXiv:2610.05690v1 [cs.DL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.05690 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)