Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

When AI Takes Sides on Questions of Faith: Persistent Asymmetries in AI-Mediated Faith Guidance

Brett Israelsen, Sheryl Carty, Josh Coates, Nancy Fulda +2 more

Published

May 21, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

57/100 (Medium)

Extraction confidence

65% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

May 28, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

General Llm As Judge Pairwise Preference

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
57/100
Moderate-confidence candidate

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically. The answer is no. When asked for advice on hypothetical faith transitions from religion A->B vs. religion B->A , models exhibited consistent asymmetries, favoring some religions while subtly discouraging conversion to others. On average Catholic, Bahá'í, and Sikh religions were broadly favored (high support for joining, low support for leaving), while Atheists, Agnostics, and Jehovah's Witnesses were primarily disfavored. Patterns varied by model size and model provider, with Grok 4.20 exhibiting the strongest asymmetries. We tested 20 commercial and open-source language models across 182 religion pairings using a human-verified LLM-as-judge framework. Each model was probed via interactions with a simulated user asking for advice on a potential faith conversion. Models tended to use more encouraging language for some faith transitions over others; these patterns were systematically repeatable across multiple trials. All LLMs tested exhibited reproducible asymmetry, though the pattern of preferences differed for each. Overall preferences persist across multiple question phrasings and variations in the religious pairing dataset. Taken together, these results suggest that asymmetry is a robust property of model behavior rather than an artifact of how the models' answers were scored. It is important to consider that any imbalances deployed and reproduced at scale can have real-world implications.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Pairwise Preference

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Llm As Judge

Includes extracted eval setup.

"We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Pairwise Preference
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
General
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Llm As Judge
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Secondary protocol comparison source

Research brief

Metadata summary

We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically.
  • When asked for advice on hypothetical faith transitions from religion A->B vs.
  • religion B->A , models exhibited consistent asymmetries, favoring some religions while subtly discouraging conversion to others.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • We tested 20 commercial and open-source language models across 182 religion pairings using a human-verified LLM-as-judge framework.
  • All LLMs tested exhibited reproducible asymmetry, though the pattern of preferences differed for each.
  • Overall preferences persist across multiple question phrasings and variations in the religious pairing dataset.

Why it matters for eval

  • We tested 20 commercial and open-source language models across 182 religion pairings using a human-verified LLM-as-judge framework.
  • All LLMs tested exhibited reproducible asymmetry, though the pattern of preferences differed for each.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Llm As Judge

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.