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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05690 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05690/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 33 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [LongLLMLingua: Accelerating and Enhancing LLMs in Long Context Scenarios via Prompt Compression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06839/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Verifiability in Generative Search Engines](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.09848/) (2023)
- [LLMLingua: Compressing Prompts for Accelerated Inference of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05736/) (2023)
- [Concise Thoughts: Impact of Output Length on LLM Reasoning and Cost](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.19825/) (2024)
- [Prompt Compression with Context-Aware Sentence Encoding for Fast and Improved LLM Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.01227/) (2024)
- [The emergence of Large Language Models (LLM) as a tool in literature reviews: an LLM automated systematic review](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04600/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models for Automated Literature Review: An Evaluation of Reference Generation, Abstract Writing, and Review Composition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.13612/) (2024)
- [Improving accuracy of GPT-3/4 results on biomedical data using a retrieval-augmented language model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17116/) (2023)
- [Prompt Compression in the Wild: Measuring Latency, Rate Adherence, and Quality for Faster LLM Inference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.02985/) (2026)
- [RAGRouter-Bench: A Dataset and Benchmark for Adaptive RAG Routing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.00296/) (2026)
- [Trustworthy AI for Medicine: Continuous Hallucination Detection and Elimination with CHECK](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.11129/) (2025)
- [Errors in AI-Assisted Retrieval of Medical Literature: A Comparative Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.22344/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

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.