Large Language Models in Cellulose Biopolymer Studies: Evaluating ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot for Information and Reference Accuracy

IF 4.8 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
Mesbah Ahmad, Tanmay Rahman, Nitesh Kumar Kasera, Shoeb Ahmed
{"title":"Large Language Models in Cellulose Biopolymer Studies: Evaluating ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot for Information and Reference Accuracy","authors":"Mesbah Ahmad,&nbsp;Tanmay Rahman,&nbsp;Nitesh Kumar Kasera,&nbsp;Shoeb Ahmed","doi":"10.1155/int/2260439","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>With the increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) for scientific research, it is critical to assess their reliability in specialized fields such as biopolymer science, particularly with respect to the verifiability of the references. This study examines the performance of two widely used LLMs, ChatGPT (GPT-4 omni) and Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4), in responding to questions and citing the references for the answers on cellulose biopolymers. The questions are set based on three cognitive levels: beginner, intermediate, and expert, and the accuracy of the responses and references provided by the models are assessed. Results show that ChatGPT outperforms Copilot in all cognitive levels, particularly in addressing mathematical problems. ChatGPT achieves 91.9%, 91.9%, and 88.6% accuracy at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels, respectively, whereas Copilot achieves 82.4%, 82.5%, and 71.1% accuracy. However, the analysis of references reveals critical shortcomings in both models. While Copilot tends to cite more recent journal articles, ChatGPT often relies on older ones. In many cases, references are incomplete, fabricated, or lack proper context, highlighting the persistent challenge of verifying AI-generated citations. Overall, Copilot outperforms ChatGPT in providing correct references. Results show that ChatGPT provides 6%, 36%, and 45% fabricated references at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels, respectively, whereas Copilot delivers 13%, 9%, and 7% fabricated references at these levels. This work emphasizes that while LLMs hold promise in supporting scientific inquiry in biopolymers, their current limitations in response accuracy and citation reliability need to be addressed before they can serve as dependable tools for scholarly work.</p>","PeriodicalId":14089,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Intelligent Systems","volume":"2026 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/int/2260439","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Intelligent Systems","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/int/2260439","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) for scientific research, it is critical to assess their reliability in specialized fields such as biopolymer science, particularly with respect to the verifiability of the references. This study examines the performance of two widely used LLMs, ChatGPT (GPT-4 omni) and Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4), in responding to questions and citing the references for the answers on cellulose biopolymers. The questions are set based on three cognitive levels: beginner, intermediate, and expert, and the accuracy of the responses and references provided by the models are assessed. Results show that ChatGPT outperforms Copilot in all cognitive levels, particularly in addressing mathematical problems. ChatGPT achieves 91.9%, 91.9%, and 88.6% accuracy at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels, respectively, whereas Copilot achieves 82.4%, 82.5%, and 71.1% accuracy. However, the analysis of references reveals critical shortcomings in both models. While Copilot tends to cite more recent journal articles, ChatGPT often relies on older ones. In many cases, references are incomplete, fabricated, or lack proper context, highlighting the persistent challenge of verifying AI-generated citations. Overall, Copilot outperforms ChatGPT in providing correct references. Results show that ChatGPT provides 6%, 36%, and 45% fabricated references at the beginner, intermediate, and expert levels, respectively, whereas Copilot delivers 13%, 9%, and 7% fabricated references at these levels. This work emphasizes that while LLMs hold promise in supporting scientific inquiry in biopolymers, their current limitations in response accuracy and citation reliability need to be addressed before they can serve as dependable tools for scholarly work.

Abstract Image

纤维素生物聚合物研究中的大型语言模型:评估ChatGPT和微软副驾驶的信息和参考准确性
随着科学研究越来越依赖大型语言模型(llm),评估其在生物聚合物科学等专业领域的可靠性至关重要,特别是关于参考文献的可验证性。本研究考察了两种广泛使用的LLMs, ChatGPT (GPT-4 omni)和Microsoft Copilot (GPT-4)在回答有关纤维素生物聚合物的问题和引用参考答案方面的性能。问题是基于三个认知水平设置的:初学者,中级和专家,并评估了模型提供的回答和参考的准确性。结果表明,ChatGPT在所有认知水平上都优于Copilot,特别是在解决数学问题方面。ChatGPT在初级、中级和专家级的准确率分别达到91.9%、91.9%和88.6%,而Copilot的准确率分别达到82.4%、82.5%和71.1%。然而,对参考文献的分析揭示了这两种模型的关键缺陷。虽然Copilot倾向于引用较新的期刊文章,但ChatGPT通常依赖于较老的期刊文章。在许多情况下,参考文献是不完整的、捏造的或缺乏适当的背景,这突出了验证人工智能生成的引用的持续挑战。总的来说,Copilot在提供正确的参考方面优于ChatGPT。结果显示,ChatGPT在初级、中级和专家级别分别提供了6%、36%和45%的虚构参考,而Copilot在这些级别分别提供了13%、9%和7%的虚构参考。这项工作强调,虽然法学硕士在支持生物聚合物的科学探究方面有希望,但在它们成为学术工作的可靠工具之前,它们目前在响应准确性和引用可靠性方面的局限性需要得到解决。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Intelligent Systems
International Journal of Intelligent Systems 工程技术-计算机:人工智能
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
304
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Intelligent Systems serves as a forum for individuals interested in tapping into the vast theories based on intelligent systems construction. With its peer-reviewed format, the journal explores several fascinating editorials written by today''s experts in the field. Because new developments are being introduced each day, there''s much to be learned — examination, analysis creation, information retrieval, man–computer interactions, and more. The International Journal of Intelligent Systems uses charts and illustrations to demonstrate these ground-breaking issues, and encourages readers to share their thoughts and experiences.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书