What do Asian Religions Have in Common? An Unsupervised Text Analytics Exploration

Preeti Sah; Ernest Fokoué

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1912.10847

What do Asian Religions Have in Common? An Unsupervised Text Analytics Exploration

Preeti Sah·Ernest Fokoué

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The main source of various religious teachings is their sacred texts which vary from religion to religion based on different factors like the geographical location or time of the birth of a particular religion. Despite these differences, there could be similarities between the sacred texts based on what lessons it teaches to its followers. This paper attempts to find the similarity using text mining techniques. The corpus consisting of Asian (Tao Te Ching, Buddhism, Yogasutra, Upanishad) and non-Asian (four Bible texts) is used to explore findings of similarity measures like Euclidean, Manhattan, Jaccard and Cosine on raw Document Term Frequency [DTM], normalized DTM which reveals similarity based on word usage. The performance of Supervised learning algorithms like K-Nearest Neighbor [KNN], Support Vector Machine [SVM] and Random Forest is measured based on its accuracy to predict correct scared text for any given chapter in the corpus. The K-means clustering visualizations on Euclidean distances of raw DTM reveals that there exists a pattern of similarity among these sacred texts with Upanishads and Tao Te Ching is the most similar text in the corpus.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL cs.LG stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Preeti Sah, Ernest Fokoué. 2019-12-20. What do Asian Religions Have in Common? An Unsupervised Text Analytics Exploration. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.10847

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Geometric Uncertainty for Detecting and Correcting Hallucinations in LLMs

Large language models are known to hallucinate, generating linguistically plausible but incorrect answers to questions. Uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a strategy to detect such behaviour, but existing methods lack a unified framework to assess reliability at both the prompt and answer level. We introduce a geometric framework which quantifies language model uncertainty at both levels by explicitly modelling a prompt-conditioned semantic distribution in answer embedding space. Our approach is black-box and sampling-based; we generate multiple answers per prompt, and use archetypal analysis to estimate a geometric support for the answer distribution. At the prompt level, we approximate the distribution entropy to quantify uncertainty; for each individual answer, we then use notions of atypicality to assess its reliability relative to the batch. We employ our framework to not only detect hallucinations but correct them, by selecting the batch example deemed most reliable. Experiments show that our framework performs comparably to or better than prior methods on short form question-answering datasets, and achieves superior results on medical datasets where hallucinations carry particularly critical risks. Beyond pure performance, we suggest the theoretical grounding of our work provides support for semantic distributions as useful objects of study for language model uncertainty.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Calibrated Confidence Expression for Radiology Report Generation

Safe deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) in radiology report generation requires not only accurate predictions but also clinically interpretable indicators of when outputs should be thoroughly reviewed, enabling selective radiologist verification and reducing the risk of hallucinated findings influencing clinical decisions. One intuitive approach to this is verbalized confidence, where the model explicitly states its certainty. However, current state-of-the-art language models are often overconfident, and research on calibration in multimodal settings such as radiology report generation is limited. To address this gap, we introduce ConRad (Confidence Calibration for Radiology Reports), a reinforcement learning framework for fine-tuning medical LVLMs to produce calibrated verbalized confidence estimates alongside radiology reports. We study two settings: a single report-level confidence score and a sentence-level variant assigning a confidence to each claim. Both are trained using the GRPO algorithm with reward functions based on the logarithmic scoring rule, which incentivizes truthful self-assessment by penalizing miscalibration and guarantees optimal calibration under reward maximization. Experimentally, ConRad substantially improves calibration and outperforms competing methods. In a clinical evaluation we show that ConRad's report level scores are well aligned with clinicians' judgment. By highlighting full reports or low-confidence statements for targeted review, ConRad can support safer clinical integration of AI-assistance for report generation.

cs.CL↗