arXiv:2608. 12324v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: People increasingly ask large language models (LLMs) for counsel on questions of faith, doctrine, and pastoral care.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2609.13634v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Do AI assistants help believers reason about moral dilemmas consistently with their faith? We present FaithfulBench, the first benchmark to score AI...
arXiv:2608. 07508v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are already advisors to millions of people of faith who bring them real decisions.
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
PetQA is a Korean long‑form question‑answering benchmark designed to assess veterinary knowledge and clinical reasoning in large language and vision‑language models. It comprises 10,076 text‑only and 8,751 multimodal QA pairs about dogs and cats, with expert veterinarian answers, and a test split called PetQA‑Bench that includes question type and clinical condition annotations. The study evaluates 18 models across zero‑shot, retrieval‑augmented generation, and supervised fine‑tuning settings using ROUGE, BERTScore, and LLM‑as‑a‑judge metrics, revealing current models’ strengths and limitations and underscoring the need for better adaptation methods for clinically reliable veterinary AI; translated versions in five languages are also provided.
arXiv:2606. 07810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability.
Large language model assistants are being deployed to clinicians, but their readiness is judged mainly by benchmark scores that are based on examination questions or curated cases. This study analyzed 127,833 queries from 6,342 healthcare professionals across 35 specialties, finding that most requests were for documentation, administration, and knowledge retrieval, with a significant portion of queries unanswerable. When compared to 58 public benchmarks, the median benchmark lacked documentation requests and only shared 31% of the real task mix, indicating that current benchmarks poorly reflect actual clinical use.