SACRED: A Faithful Annotated Multimedia Multimodal Multilingual Dataset for Classifying Connectedness Types in Online Spirituality
arXiv:2603.27331v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In religion and theology studies, spirituality has garnered significant research attention for the reason that it not only transcends culture but offers unique experience to each individual. However, social scientists often rely on limited datasets, which are basically unavailable online. In this study, we collaborated with social scientists to develop a high-quality multimedia multi-modal datasets, \textbf{SACRED}, in which the faithfulness of classification is guaranteed. Using \textbf{SACRED}, we evaluated the performance of 13 popular LLMs as — Qinghao Guan, Yuchen Pan, Donghao Li, Zishi Zhang, Yiyang Chen, Lu Li, Flaminia Canu, Emilia Volkart, Gerold Schneider
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:In religion and theology studies, spirituality has garnered significant research attention for the reason that it not only transcends culture but offers unique experience to each individual. However, social scientists often rely on limited datasets, which are basically unavailable online. In this study, we collaborated with social scientists to develop a high-quality multimedia multi-modal datasets, \textbf{SACRED}, in which the faithfulness of classification is guaranteed. Using \textbf{SACRED}, we evaluated the performance of 13 popular LLMs as well as traditional rule-based and fine-tuned approaches. The result suggests DeepSeek-V3 model performs well in classifying such abstract concepts (i.e., 79.19% accuracy in the Quora test set), and the GPT-4o-mini model surpassed the other models in the vision tasks (63.99% F1 score). Purportedly, this is the first annotated multi-modal dataset from online spirituality communication. Our study also found a new type of connectedness which is valuable for communication science studies.
Comments: Accepted by LLMs4SSH 2026 at LREC
Subjects:
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Multimedia (cs.MM)
Cite as: arXiv:2603.27331 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2603.27331v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.27331
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Submission history
From: Qinghao Guan Mr. [view email] [v1] Sat, 28 Mar 2026 16:26:12 UTC (2,694 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
researchpaperarxiv
AGI Won’t Automate Most Jobs—Economist Reveals Why They’re Not Worth It
Why AGI Won't Steal Your Job—And That Might Be Worse The fear that artificial general intelligence (AGI) will render most human labor obsolete has become a staple of modern discourse. But what if the real story is more nuanced—and more unsettling—than the dystopian narrative suggests? A new paper by one of the world's foremost economists of automation challenges the assumption that AGI will simply replace human workers en masse. Instead, it reveals a paradox: many jobs won't be automated not because they're irreplaceable, but because they're not worth the effort to automate. Key Takeaways: The traditional view of AGI as a universal job-killer is being questioned by leading economists. Many jobs may remain untouched by automation, not due to their complexity, but because they lack economic
Academic Proof-of-Work in the Age of LLMs
Written quickly as part of the Inkhaven Residency . Related: Bureaucracy as active ingredient , pain as active ingredient A widely known secret in academia is that many of the formalities serve in large part proof of work . That is, the reason expensive procedures exist is that some way of filtering must exist, and the amount of effort invested can often be a good proxy for the quality of the work. Specifically, the pool of research is vast, and good research can often be hard to identify. Even engaging in research enough to understand its quality can be expensive. As a result, people look toward signs of visible, expensive effort in order to determine whether to engage in the research at all. Why do people insist only on reading research that’s published in well-formatted, well-written pa
[R] Looking for arXiv cs.LG endorser, inference monitoring using information geometry
Hi r/MachineLearning , I’m looking for an arXiv endorser in cs.LG for a paper on inference-time distribution shift detection for deployed LLMs. The core idea: instead of monitoring input embeddings (which is what existing tools do), we monitor the statistical manifold of the model’s output distributions using Fisher-Rao geodesic distance. We then run adaptive CUSUM (Page-Hinkley) on the resulting z-score stream to catch slow drift that per-request spike detection misses entirely. The methodology is grounded in published work on information geometry (Figshare, DOIs available). We’ve validated the signal on real OpenAI API logprobs, CUSUM caught gradual domain drift in 7 steps with zero false alarms during warmup, while spike detection missed it entirely. If anyone with cs.LG endorsement is
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
Academic Proof-of-Work in the Age of LLMs
Written quickly as part of the Inkhaven Residency . Related: Bureaucracy as active ingredient , pain as active ingredient A widely known secret in academia is that many of the formalities serve in large part proof of work . That is, the reason expensive procedures exist is that some way of filtering must exist, and the amount of effort invested can often be a good proxy for the quality of the work. Specifically, the pool of research is vast, and good research can often be hard to identify. Even engaging in research enough to understand its quality can be expensive. As a result, people look toward signs of visible, expensive effort in order to determine whether to engage in the research at all. Why do people insist only on reading research that’s published in well-formatted, well-written pa
Signals – finding the most informative agent traces without LLM judges (arxiv.org)
Hello Peeps Salman, Shuguang and Adil here from Katanemo Labs (a DigitalOcean company). Wanted to introduce our latest research on agentic systems called Signals. If you've been building agents, you've probably noticed that there are far too many agent traces/trajectories to review one by one, and using humans or extra LLM calls to inspect all of them gets expensive really fast. The paper proposes a lightweight way to compute structured “signals” from live agent interactions so you can surface the trajectories most worth looking at, without changing the agent’s online behavior. Computing Signals doesn't require a GPU. Signals are grouped into a simple taxonomy across interaction, execution, and environment patterns, including things like misalignment, stagnation, disengagement, failure, lo
[R] Looking for arXiv cs.LG endorser, inference monitoring using information geometry
Hi r/MachineLearning , I’m looking for an arXiv endorser in cs.LG for a paper on inference-time distribution shift detection for deployed LLMs. The core idea: instead of monitoring input embeddings (which is what existing tools do), we monitor the statistical manifold of the model’s output distributions using Fisher-Rao geodesic distance. We then run adaptive CUSUM (Page-Hinkley) on the resulting z-score stream to catch slow drift that per-request spike detection misses entirely. The methodology is grounded in published work on information geometry (Figshare, DOIs available). We’ve validated the signal on real OpenAI API logprobs, CUSUM caught gradual domain drift in 7 steps with zero false alarms during warmup, while spike detection missed it entirely. If anyone with cs.LG endorsement is
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!