The DOI matches its DataCite record.
LLMs4All: A Review of Large Language Models Across Academic Disciplines
Open accessAbstract
Cutting-edge Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques keep reshaping our view of the world. For example, Large Language Models (LLMs) based applications such as ChatGPT have shown the capability of generating human-like conversation on extensive topics. Due to the impressive performance on a variety of language-related tasks (e.g., open-domain question answering, translation, and document summarization), one can envision the far-reaching impacts that can be brought by the LLMs with broader real-world applications (e.g., customer service, education and accessibility, and scientific discovery). Inspired by their success, this paper will offer an overview of state-of-the-art LLMs and their integration into a wide range of academic disciplines, including: (1) arts, letters, and law (e.g., history, philosophy, political science, arts and architecture, law), (2) economics and business (e.g., finance, economics, accounting, marketing), and (3) science and engineering (e.g., mathematics, physics and mechanical engineering, chemistry and chemical engineering, life sciences and bioengineering, earth sciences and civil engineering, computer science and electrical engineering). Integrating humanity and technology, in this paper, we will explore how LLMs are shaping research and practice in these fields, while also discussing key limitations, open challenges, and future directions in the era of generative AI. The review of how LLMs are engaged across disciplines-along with key observations and insights-can help researchers and practitioners interested in exploiting LLMs to advance their works in diverse real-world applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The rapid adoption of LLMs and other generative systems has introduced a qualitatively new risk: the automatic creation of bibliographic entries that have no counterpart in the scholarly record.
“However, the rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) [28] and other generative systems [29] has introduced a qualitatively new risk: the automatic creation of bibliographic entries that have no counterpart in the scholarly record.”
From CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era (2026) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shi, K., Sun, W., Zhang, Z., Sun, L., Chawla, N. V., & Ye, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.23452
“However, the rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) [28] and other generative systems [29] has introduced a qualitatively new risk: the automatic creation of bibliographic entries that have no counterpart in the scholarly record.”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Ye, Y., Zhang, Z., Ma, T., Wang, Z., Li, Y., Hou, S., Sun, W., Shi, K., Ma, Y., Song, W., Abbasi, A., Cheng, Y., Cleland-Huang, J., Corcelli, S., Goulding, R., Hu, M., Hua, T., Lalor, J., Liu, F., Luo, T., Maginn, E., Moniz, N., Rohr, J., Savoie, B., Slate, D., Webber, M., Wiest, O., Zhang, J., & Chawla, N. V.
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2509.19580
- OpenAlex
- W4415343716
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- large language models, generative AI, interdisciplinary applications, humanities and social sciences, economics and business, science and engineering, ChatGPT, open-domain question answering, document summarization, translation, scientific discovery
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review