Papers › JaleesBench: Are AI Assistants Good Spiritual Company?
JaleesBench: Are AI Assistants Good Spiritual Company?
M. Waleed Kadous, Benjamin Olsen
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Large language models are already advisors to millions of people of faith who bring them real decisions. The pressing question for a person of faith is not what a model knows or professes but what its counsel does to the person who receives it. We introduce JaleesBench, which measures whether an AI agent is a righteous companion, judged by the residue an exchange leaves on the user, in the manner of the perfume-seller and the blacksmith. It comprises 140 two-turn scenarios drawn from a classical compilation organized by virtue (Riyad al-Salihin), under six adversarial pressures and three framings, scored by two frontier judges against each scenario's own supporting texts. Across eight systems: (1) generic frontier models are only middling companions out of the box but a one-page guide makes them genuinely good ones, on par with the domain-tuned assistant: the frontier APIs climb from +0.28/+0.23 to a Guided +0.84-0.87, so most of the expert's edge is companionship instruction that fits in a prompt; (2) every system caves under relational pressure, insistence and personal appeal; (3) the domain-tuned assistant's advantage is overwhelmingly its retrieval-and-prompting layer, not its base model (+0.74 over the identical underlying model); and (4) it can be used to improve existing systems: guided by its diagnosis, a single steadfastness instruction lifts a deployed Islamic assistant from +0.48 to +0.84 (Faith unstated, after pressure), matching the best guided frontier systems while preserving first-response quality. The construct is faith-general; we instantiate it for Islam as the first of a planned cross-tradition family. Code, scenario bank, and rubric are open source (github.com/iaser-ai/jaleesbench), with an interactive results browser at s.iaser.ai/jb.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2608.07508")
Code
Syntology Ran 5 of 12 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 7 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 5 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 12 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
12 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 12 of the 12 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from iaser-ai/jaleesbench. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
bebc35bfe37cfd88 · report
efacb6b152024de0 · report
9b3c9ab1e54453d2 · report
75f8e3606e6efd09 · report
40f49af657013c8e · report
816003589e9da3ba · report
45571f6f78e3ab2d · report
336dc9d098d21032 · report
f94c789f9001e97b · report
d75efdd65af1e1cf · report
ef444f91fb7661da · report
a76d146e796b2ab3 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.07508, was issued in August 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections