Introduction Students in non-English higher education are increasingly using large language models (LLMs) as informal study aids; however, the factual reliability of these systems in lower-resource languages - and its consequences for learning - remain largely unmeasured. Methods We report a controlled, fully reproducible evaluation of factual hallucination in eight open-weight LLMs answering 100 verifiable factual questions in English, Russian, and Uzbek. Uzbek, an agglutinative and comparatively low-resource Turkic language, is the primary language of instruction at our institution. Responses were scored with a deterministic answer-key procedure. Results The factual error rate increased monotonically with the resource level of the query language: 3.5% in English, 10.9% in Russian, and 15.9% in Uzbek (pooled over models; chi-square = 68.5, df = 2, p < 10 -14 ). The gap was present in nearly every model, but its size varied widely: a 12B general-purpose model answered reliably across all three languages, whereas the smaller 1-4B models had an error rate of 24%-27% in Uzbek. Language-adapted models - open checkpoints continued-pretrained or fine-tuned on Uzbek - closed the gap almost entirely, reaching an error rate of 2%-8% in Uzbek, comparable to their reliability in English. Discussion A student querying an off-the-shelf model in Uzbek is several times more likely to receive an incorrect fact than an English-speaking peer, which is both an equity concern and a hazard for academic integrity when unverified output enters student work. The risk, however, is not intrinsic to the language: it can be substantially reduced by preferring language-adapted models and by auditing per-language reliability before classroom deployment. All questions, code, and model outputs are released to support replication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Olimov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: