HEARSAYBENCH: Can AI Navigate from Abstract Human Rights to Lived Lives?

Ava Iranmanesh; Sobhan Lotfi; Ali Iranmanesh; Liwei Jiang

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.39062

HEARSAYBENCH: Can AI Navigate from Abstract Human Rights to Lived Lives?

Ava Iranmanesh·Sobhan Lotfi·Ali Iranmanesh·Liwei Jiang

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) reach users worldwide, personal counseling has emerged as one of their most consequential applications, sometimes in life-critical situations. Yet broader access does not mean equal support. The text these models learn from disproportionately reflects people with the freedom to act, embedding an implicit assumption that users can leave, report, seek help, or appeal. Existing benchmarks largely inherit this assumption, overlooking users whose agency is constrained by structural conditions such as war, statelessness, and displacement. Meanwhile, models are increasingly shaped by normative frameworks such as Constitutional AI, often grounded in ideals like human rights, even as many users live where those rights offer little protection or recourse. We introduce HEARSAYBENCH, a human-authored dataset of 400 test cases with in-region human verification grounded in scenarios where structural barriers stand between a person and the exercise of their rights. Built from United Nations and other human rights reports, the scenarios span over 80 regions and cover social, environmental, and personal constraints. Drawing on Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach, HEARSAYBENCH tests whether models can distinguish what a person is formally entitled to do from what they are actually able to do. Across 14 proprietary and open-weight models, every model infers a user's situation more accurately than it advises on it. Stronger models narrow this gap, but their recommendations remain unsafe to follow. Models may understand lives shaped by constraint, yet that knowledge remains hearsay if it cannot translate into advice people can act on. Those people are not alignment's long tail; they are among the users for whom good guidance matters most. HEARSAYBENCH makes this failure measurable, a step toward systems that serve the world as it is rather than as assumed.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Ava Iranmanesh, Sobhan Lotfi, Ali Iranmanesh, Liwei Jiang. 2026-10-28. HEARSAYBENCH: Can AI Navigate from Abstract Human Rights to Lived Lives?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.39062

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

From Statistical Methods to Pre-Trained Models; A Survey on Automatic Speech Recognition for Resource Scarce Urdu Language

Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR) technology has witnessed significant advancements in recent years, revolutionizing human-computer interactions. While major languages have benefited from these developments, lesser-resourced languages like Urdu face unique challenges. This paper provides an extensive exploration of the dynamic landscape of ASR research, focusing particularly on the resource-constrained Urdu language, which is widely spoken across South Asian nations. It outlines current research trends, technological advancements, and potential directions for future studies in Urdu ASR, aiming to pave the way for forthcoming researchers interested in this domain. By leveraging contemporary technologies, analyzing existing datasets, and evaluating effective algorithms and tools, the paper seeks to shed light on the unique challenges and opportunities associated with Urdu language processing and its integration into the broader field of speech research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Joint Detection of Fraud and Concept Drift inOnline Conversations with LLM-Assisted Judgment

Detecting fake interactions in digital communication platforms remains a challenging and insufficiently addressed problem. These interactions may appear as harmless spam or escalate into sophisticated scam attempts, making it difficult to flag malicious intent early. Traditional detection methods often rely on static anomaly detection techniques that fail to adapt to dynamic conversational shifts. One key limitation is the misinterpretation of benign topic transitions referred to as concept drift as fraudulent behavior, leading to either false alarms or missed threats. We propose a two stage detection framework that first identifies suspicious conversations using a tailored ensemble classification model. To improve the reliability of detection, we incorporate a concept drift analysis step using a One Class Drift Detector (OCDD) to isolate conversational shifts within flagged dialogues. When drift is detected, a large language model (LLM) assesses whether the shift indicates fraudulent manipulation or a legitimate topic change. In cases where no drift is found, the behavior is inferred to be spam like. We validate our framework using a dataset of social engineering chat scenarios and demonstrate its practical advantages in improving both accuracy and interpretability for real time fraud detection. To contextualize the trade offs, we compare our modular approach against a Dual LLM baseline that performs detection and judgment using different language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

SAFE: An LLM-as-Verifier Framework for Evidence-Grounded Multi-Hop Reasoning

Multi-hop QA benchmarks often reward Large Language Models (LLMs) for spurious correctness, where models reach correct answers through invalid intermediate reasoning. We propose SAFE, an LLM-as-verifier framework for evidence-grounded multi-hop QA. Rather than judging only the final answer after generation, SAFE verifies reasoning during generation by checking intermediate steps against the provided passages and previous reasoning trajectory. To make this process checkable, SAFE decomposes reasoning into atomic, evidence-grounded units represented with Knowledge Graph (KG) triples. At train-time, SAFE verifies benchmark supervision under KG-grounded constraints and constructs reliable verifier training data. At inference-time, an external verifier checks each generated step, identifies invalid reasoning, and provides correction feedback before errors propagate. Across three multi-hop QA benchmarks, SAFE improves accuracy by 8.8 pp on average. These results show that evidence-grounded multi-hop QA benefits from shifting LLM-based evaluation from post-hoc answer judgment to stepwise reasoning verification.

cs.CL↗