Can Huawei Rebuild Trust After Plagiarism Allegations in China’s AI Race?

China’s AI industry is locked in an intense race for technological dominance, with Huawei and Alibaba as leading contenders. The recent plagiarism allegations against Huawei’s Pangu Pro MoE model have amplified scrutiny on the integrity of foundational AI models. As U.S. sanctions push Chinese firms to demonstrate indigenous innovation, the stakes for credibility and trust have never been higher.

Huawei’s position as a pioneer is now under the microscope, especially as open-source releases become a battleground for both adoption and reputation. The controversy has also cast a shadow over Alibaba, whose stock dipped following the news, reflecting investor anxiety over potential intellectual property breaches and the broader implications for China’s AI ambitions.

The outcome of this dispute could reshape perceptions of China’s AI sector, influencing both domestic and international confidence in its leading technology firms.

Technical Evidence and the Challenge of Proof

The core of the controversy lies in a “fingerprinting” analysis by HonestAGI, which reported a striking 0.927 correlation between the attention parameters of Huawei’s Pangu Pro MoE and Alibaba’s Qwen 2.5 14B model. This level of similarity is rare among independently developed models and has fueled suspicions of model “upcycling” rather than original creation.

HonestAGI’s methodology, while innovative, has faced skepticism from Huawei’s Noah’s Ark Lab, which argues that similarities are inevitable given the shared transformer architecture underpinning most large language models. The lab contends that the fingerprinting approach may not reliably distinguish between independent and derivative models, especially when industry standards and open-source frameworks are widely used.

The absence of comprehensive technical documentation from both companies leaves the AI community divided, with no clear consensus on whether the evidence constitutes definitive proof of plagiarism.

Did you know?
The “fingerprinting” technique used in this controversy is a recent innovation, aiming to identify unique patterns in AI models’ parameter distributions. However, its reliability as a definitive test for plagiarism remains hotly debated within the AI research community.

Huawei’s Defense and Commitment to Transparency

In response to the allegations, Huawei’s Noah’s Ark Lab issued a strong denial, asserting that the Pangu Pro MoE model was “independently developed and trained” and features key innovations in both architecture and technical features. The lab emphasized that the model is the first large-scale LLM built entirely on Huawei’s proprietary Ascend chips, underscoring its commitment to homegrown technology.

Huawei also highlighted strict adherence to open-source license requirements, stating that any third-party code was used in compliance with industry standards and clearly marked in the source files. However, the company did not specify which open-source models were referenced, leaving some questions unanswered in the eyes of critics and the open-source community.

By welcoming professional discussion and scrutiny from the AI community, Huawei is attempting to position itself as transparent and collaborative, even as it faces mounting pressure to provide further clarity.

ALSO READ | Ambiq Micro’s IPO Signals Growing Investor Confidence in Energy-Efficient AI Chips

Intellectual Property and the Limits of Current Frameworks

The controversy has exposed the inadequacies of existing intellectual property protections in the AI sector. As companies build on similar research, open-source frameworks, and published architectures, distinguishing between legitimate influence and outright copying becomes increasingly complex.

HonestAGI’s fingerprinting technique, though novel, may not be robust enough to serve as a legal or technical standard for model provenance. The blurred boundaries between shared innovation and proprietary breakthroughs highlight the need for more sophisticated tools and clearer guidelines in AI intellectual property law.

For now, the dispute serves as a cautionary tale for the entire industry, signaling that transparency, documentation, and open dialogue will be essential for maintaining trust as AI models grow in complexity and commercial value.

The Path Forward for Huawei’s Reputation

Huawei’s ability to rebuild trust hinges on its willingness to engage with the global AI community and address calls for greater transparency. While its strong denial and emphasis on proprietary innovation may reassure some stakeholders, the lack of detailed technical disclosures leaves lingering doubts.

Restoring credibility will likely require Huawei to provide independent audits or open technical reviews of its model development process. The company’s future standing in China’s AI race will depend not only on technological prowess but also on its commitment to ethical standards and open communication.

As the sector continues to evolve, the Huawei-Alibaba dispute may well become a defining case for how AI leaders navigate the delicate balance between competition, collaboration, and trust.