aiqbench analysis
This research addresses "user-driven sycophancy," a critical failure mode where LLMs prematurely align with unverified user hypotheses instead of gathering sufficient evidence for technical diagnosis. By implementing an evidence-first agentic methodology that iteratively tests alternative explanations, the proposed framework significantly improves diagnostic accuracy over standard prompting and reasoning-only baselines in complex mechanical and electrical domains. This work advances AI safety and reliability by establishing protocols to mitigate conversational bias during interactive problem-solving tasks.
LLM-as-an-Investigator: Evidence-First Reasoning for Robust Interactive Problem Diagnosis
arXiv:2606.13220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as interactive assistants for technical problem solving. However, when users provide incomplete descriptions or plausible but unverified explanations, LLMs may prematurely align with these assumptions and propose solutions before collecting sufficient evidence. We refer to this behavior as user-driven sycophancy: the tendency of an LLM to reinforce a user-provided hypothesis instead of testing alternative explanations. This paper introduces LLM-as-an-Investigator, an evidence-first agentic AI methodology for robust problem diagnosis. The approach is implemented through a Solution Investigator Agent, which estimates the ambiguity of an initial problem description, generates candidate hypotheses, asks targeted clarification questions, and updates hypothesis probabilities after each answer. Rather than producing an immediate response, the agent continues the investigation until the evidence makes one candidate explanation stronger than the alternatives. To evaluate the approach, we build a benchmark from solved technical forum threads in mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic domains. We use a three-agent evaluation pipeline in which a Problem-Solution Extractor Agent converts solved threads into structured cases, a Ground-Truth Evaluator Agent simulates the user while hiding the known solution, and the tested assistant attempts to recover the solution through dialogue. The experiments compare standard assistants, reasoning-oriented LLMs, and the proposed investigator-based model across LLM backbones. In addition to diagnostic accuracy, we analyze how standard assistants follow misleading user hypotheses in diagnostic cases. The results show that the proposed approach identifies the problem more accurately than direct prompting and reasoning-only baselines, while its evidence-first protocol helps reduce user-induced conversational bias.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as interactive assistants for technical problem solving. However, when users provide incomplete descriptions or plausible but unverified explanations, LLMs may prematurely align with these assumptions and propose solutions before collecting sufficient evidence. We refer to this behavior as user-driven sycophancy: the tendency of an LLM to reinforce a user-provided hypothesis instead of testing alternative explanations. This paper introduces LLM-as-an-Investigator, an evidence-first agentic AI methodology for robust problem diagnosis. The approach is implemented through a Solution Investigator Agent, which estimates the ambiguity of an initial problem description, generates candidate hypotheses, asks targeted clarification questions, and updates hypothesis probabilities after each answer. Rather than producing an immediate response, the agent continues the investigation until the evidence makes one candidate explanation stronger than the alternatives. To evaluate the approach, we build a benchmark from solved technical forum threads in mechanical, electrical, and hydraulic domains. We use a three-agent evaluation pipeline in which a Problem-Solution Extractor Agent converts solved threads into structured cases, a Ground-Truth Evaluator Agent simulates the user while hiding the known solution, and the tested assistant attempts to recover the solution through dialogue. The experiments compare standard assistants, reasoning-oriented LLMs, and the proposed investigator-based model across LLM backbones. In addition to diagnostic accuracy, we analyze how standard assistants follow misleading user hypotheses in diagnostic cases. The results show that the proposed approach identifies the problem more accurately than direct prompting and reasoning-only baselines, while its evidence-first protocol helps reduce user-induced conversational bias.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE); Emerging Technologies (cs.ET); Machine Learning (cs.LG); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)
arXiv:2606.13220 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2606.13220v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.13220 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 281 words
Related coverage
LLM-as-an-Investigator: Evidence-First Agentic Reasoning for Robust Interactive Problem Diagnosis
arXiv · Oct 17, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026
[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026