Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Assisting Research Proposal Writing with Large Language Models: Evaluation and Refinement

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2509.09709 v1 pith:5SS2PUAP submitted 2025-09-07 cs.CL cs.AI

Assisting Research Proposal Writing with Large Language Models: Evaluation and Refinement

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords writingevaluationqualityacademicchatgptcontentethicaliterative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT are increasingly used in academic writing, yet issues such as incorrect or fabricated references raise ethical concerns. Moreover, current content quality evaluations often rely on subjective human judgment, which is labor-intensive and lacks objectivity, potentially compromising the consistency and reliability. In this study, to provide a quantitative evaluation and enhance research proposal writing capabilities of LLMs, we propose two key evaluation metrics--content quality and reference validity--and an iterative prompting method based on the scores derived from these two metrics. Our extensive experiments show that the proposed metrics provide an objective, quantitative framework for assessing ChatGPT's writing performance. Additionally, iterative prompting significantly enhances content quality while reducing reference inaccuracies and fabrications, addressing critical ethical challenges in academic contexts.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology I: Literature Review

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    In a controlled test, three mid-2025 LLMs shared under 6% of literature references with physics experts, and 64% of their real references had at least one metadata error.

  2. AI's Capability in Assisting Scientific Research in Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology II: Project Planning and Proposal Evaluation

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    AI-generated one-page research proposals are scored about the same as human-written ones by human reviewers, but AI reviewers favor AI-written proposals by roughly one point and detect authorship perfectly.