Large language models eroding science understanding: an experimental study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25639v1
• Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2026 13:39:44 GMT
• Title: Large language models eroding science understanding: an experimental study
• Abstract summary: This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions.<n>It demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper is under review in AI and Ethics This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

Related papers

• Can Scientific Claims Be Removed from Large Language Models? A Systematic Evaluation of Claim-Level Unlearning [47.831933174173464]
  Language models (LMs) are trained on static scientific corpora, whereas scientific knowledge continuously evolves through correction and revision.<n>This creates a need for LMs to forget obsolete scientific claims.<n>We show that current unlearning approaches are unable to effectively eliminate claim-level knowledge and often achieve only superficial suppression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-21T10:27:49Z)
• Can LLMs extract scientific consensus? A case study in high-temperature superconductivity [8.052791451171487]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in information extraction and summarization.<n>We investigate this problem in the context of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS), a long-standing and highly debated topic in condensed matter physics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T03:52:37Z)
• LLMs are Vulnerable to Malicious Prompts Disguised as Scientific Language [29.327927413978003]
  This work reveals that many state-of-the-art LLMs are vulnerable to malicious requests hidden behind scientific language.<n>Our experiments with GPT4o, GPT4o-mini, GPT-4, LLama3-405B-Instruct, Llama3-70B-Instruct, Cohere, Gemini models demonstrate that, the models' biases and toxicity substantially increase when prompted with requests that deliberately misinterpret social science and psychological studies as evidence supporting the benefits of stereotypical biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-23T20:20:20Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Improving Scientific Hypothesis Generation with Knowledge Grounded Large Language Models [20.648157071328807]
  Large language models (LLMs) can identify novel research directions by analyzing existing knowledge. LLMs are prone to generating hallucinations'', outputs that are plausible-sounding but factually incorrect. We propose KG-CoI, a system that enhances LLM hypothesis generation by integrating external, structured knowledge from knowledge graphs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T18:50:00Z)
• "I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trust [51.542856739181474]
  We show how different natural language expressions of uncertainty impact participants' reliance, trust, and overall task performance. We find that first-person expressions decrease participants' confidence in the system and tendency to agree with the system's answers, while increasing participants' accuracy. Our findings suggest that using natural language expressions of uncertainty may be an effective approach for reducing overreliance on LLMs, but that the precise language used matters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T16:43:55Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities.<n>If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information.<n>To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
  We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z)
• SciInstruct: a Self-Reflective Instruction Annotated Dataset for Training Scientific Language Models [57.96527452844273]
  We introduce SciInstruct, a suite of scientific instructions for training scientific language models capable of college-level scientific reasoning. We curated a diverse and high-quality dataset encompassing physics, chemistry, math, and formal proofs. To verify the effectiveness of SciInstruct, we fine-tuned different language models with SciInstruct, i.e., ChatGLM3 (6B and 32B), Llama3-8B-Instruct, and Mistral-7B: MetaMath.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-15T20:22:21Z)
• Context Matters: Data-Efficient Augmentation of Large Language Models for Scientific Applications [15.893290942177112]
  We explore the challenges inherent to Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4. The capacity of LLMs to present erroneous answers in a coherent and semantically rigorous manner complicates the detection of factual inaccuracies. Our work aims to enhance the understanding and mitigation of such errors, thereby contributing to the improvement of LLM accuracy and reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T08:43:20Z)
• Unveiling the Pitfalls of Knowledge Editing for Large Language Models [41.83423510576848]
  It is still unclear whether knowledge editing might introduce side effects that pose potential risks or not. This paper pioneers the investigation into the potential pitfalls associated with knowledge editing for Large Language Models. Experimental results vividly demonstrate that knowledge editing might inadvertently cast a shadow of unintended consequences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T15:10:46Z)
• Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation [109.8527403904657]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) possess unwavering confidence in their knowledge and cannot handle the conflict between internal and external knowledge well. Retrieval augmentation proves to be an effective approach in enhancing LLMs' awareness of knowledge boundaries. We propose a simple method to dynamically utilize supporting documents with our judgement strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T16:46:10Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.