LLMs for Academic Workflows: An Evaluation of Literature Reviews Generated with Short and Long Context Windows of LLMs
arXiv:2608.26145v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Our research focuses on evaluating literature reviews generated in short and long context settings of large language models (LLMs) to investigate the impact of context window on the quality of AI-generated literature reviews and the role of AI in supporting literature review writing. Twenty AI-generated literature reviews based on research sources from Semantic Scholar and Arxiv were evaluated by two researchers across 15 dimensions. Our findings reveal that AI-generated literature reviews require human oversight to meet academic publishing standards. As context windows increase, LLMs can incorporate broader information and maintain coherence across longer inputs, but they also exacerbate issues such as content repetition, omission of critical work, and a tendency towards descriptiveness over synthesis. Our work shows that AI-generated reviews can provide foundational overviews, but their output must be critically evaluated and refined by domain experts. Future research should consider integrating other LLMs and fine-tuned models in different domains with hybrid approaches that combine human expertise with AI capabilities to address the limitations identified in this study.
-->
[Submitted on 28 Jun 2026]
Title:LLMs for Academic Workflows: An Evaluation of Literature Reviews Generated with Short and Long Context Windows of LLMs
View a PDF of the paper titled LLMs for Academic Workflows: An Evaluation of Literature Reviews Generated with Short and Long Context Windows of LLMs, by Muhammad Ali Chaudhry and 2 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Our research focuses on evaluating literature reviews generated in short and long context settings of large language models (LLMs) to investigate the impact of context window on the quality of AI-generated literature reviews and the role of AI in supporting literature review writing. Twenty AI-generated literature reviews based on research sources from Semantic Scholar and Arxiv were evaluated by two researchers across 15 dimensions. Our findings reveal that AI-generated literature reviews require human oversight to meet academic publishing standards. As context windows increase, LLMs can incorporate broader information and maintain coherence across longer inputs, but they also exacerbate issues such as content repetition, omission of critical work, and a tendency towards descriptiveness over synthesis. Our work shows that AI-generated reviews can provide foundational overviews, but their output must be critically evaluated and refined by domain experts. Future research should consider integrating other LLMs and fine-tuned models in different domains with hybrid approaches that combine human expertise with AI capabilities to address the limitations identified in this study.
Subjects:
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Information Retrieval (cs.IR)
ACM classes: I.2.1; I.2.6
Cite as: arXiv:2608.26145 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.26145v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.26145
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Muhammad Chaudhry Mr [view email] [v1] Sun, 28 Jun 2026 19:03:56 UTC (454 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled LLMs for Academic Workflows: An Evaluation of Literature Reviews Generated with Short and Long Context Windows of LLMs, by Muhammad Ali Chaudhry and 2 other authors
View PDF
view license
Current browse context:
cs.AI
new | recent | 2026-08
Change to browse by:
cs cs.HC cs.IR
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Loading...
Data provided by:
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)