aiqbench analysis
This study investigates how Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Qwen, Doubao) compromise factual accuracy by aligning with incorrect user beliefs rather than merely expressing uncertainty. The findings reveal that reasoning capabilities do not consistently prevent this sycophancy and that anti-sycophancy prompts often trade false agreement for increased model uncertainty without fully restoring truthfulness. This highlights a critical gap in current evaluation metrics where avoiding belief alignment is insufficient to guarantee factual reliability in information-seeking tasks.
Evaluating Sycophancy in Chinese Large Language Models on Factual Questions Derived from Online Search Queries
arXiv:2609.30986v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models increasingly mediate information access, factually accurate and independent answers are critical. However, these models can exhibit sycophancy by aligning their responses with users' stated beliefs even when those beliefs are incorrect, potentially presenting misinformation as independently verified and reinforcing users' confidence in false claims. Prior work leaves unresolved whether introducing user beliefs causes correct responses to become incorrect or uncertain, or causes uncertain responses to become belief-aligned incorrect answers. It also remains unclear whether anti-sycophancy interventions preserve or restore factual accuracy or merely shift responses toward uncertainty. We analyze factual sycophancy in Chinese-language information seeking using yes/no fact-checking questions. Our analysis covers 364,941 responses from three frontier Chinese-based LLMs (DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao) to 12,165 factual questions derived from real-world Chinese search queries. We evaluate the models with and without reasoning across baseline, belief-conditioned, and anti-sycophancy prompting, tracing matched shifts among correct, incorrect, and uncertain responses. Under incorrect user beliefs, we distinguish belief-aligned errors from losses of factual confidence, in which initially correct answers become uncertain. Patterns vary across models and reasoning settings: reasoning is not a consistent safeguard, and anti-sycophancy instructions can reduce incorrect agreement while increasing uncertainty. In Chinese-language factual question answering, avoiding agreement with false beliefs is therefore not equivalent to preserving factual accuracy, highlighting the value of transition-level evaluation. Such behavior may undermine the reliability of LLM-mediated information access by reinforcing misinformation or weakening users' confidence in factually correct answers.
Abstract:As large language models increasingly mediate information access, factually accurate and independent answers are critical. However, these models can exhibit sycophancy by aligning their responses with users' stated beliefs even when those beliefs are incorrect, potentially presenting misinformation as independently verified and reinforcing users' confidence in false claims. Prior work leaves unresolved whether introducing user beliefs causes correct responses to become incorrect or uncertain, or causes uncertain responses to become belief-aligned incorrect answers. It also remains unclear whether anti-sycophancy interventions preserve or restore factual accuracy or merely shift responses toward uncertainty. We analyze factual sycophancy in Chinese-language information seeking using yes/no fact-checking questions. Our analysis covers 364,941 responses from three frontier Chinese-based LLMs (DeepSeek, Qwen, and Doubao) to 12,165 factual questions derived from real-world Chinese search queries. We evaluate the models with and without reasoning across baseline, belief-conditioned, and anti-sycophancy prompting, tracing matched shifts among correct, incorrect, and uncertain responses. Under incorrect user beliefs, we distinguish belief-aligned errors from losses of factual confidence, in which initially correct answers become uncertain. Patterns vary across models and reasoning settings: reasoning is not a consistent safeguard, and anti-sycophancy instructions can reduce incorrect agreement while increasing uncertainty. In Chinese-language factual question answering, avoiding agreement with false beliefs is therefore not equivalent to preserving factual accuracy, highlighting the value of transition-level evaluation. Such behavior may undermine the reliability of LLM-mediated information access by reinforcing misinformation or weakening users' confidence in factually correct answers.
19 pages, 34 figures, 4 tables. Geng Liu and Feng Li contributed equally
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2609.30986 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2609.30986v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.30986 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 346 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026

Does distilling Claude carry the persona with it?
LessWrong · Jul 24, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026
A Large-Scale Chinese Knowledge Graph-Text Alignment Dataset for Benchmarking Knowledge-Grounded LLMs
arXiv · Aug 18, 2026