Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Preprint |
| Publicado: |
2026
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24319 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| _version_ | 1866917526940680192 |
|---|---|
| author | Wingate, David Carty, Sheryl Coates, Joshua Feldman, Daniel Fulda, Nancy Howell, Larry Israelson, Brett Jacobs, Dallin Karr, Jonathan Kimes, John Paul Kincaid, Elisabeth Martens, Paul Mobley, Gavin Pinheiro, Suzana Slemboski, Lindsay Whiting, Peter |
| author_facet | Wingate, David Carty, Sheryl Coates, Joshua Feldman, Daniel Fulda, Nancy Howell, Larry Israelson, Brett Jacobs, Dallin Karr, Jonathan Kimes, John Paul Kincaid, Elisabeth Martens, Paul Mobley, Gavin Pinheiro, Suzana Slemboski, Lindsay Whiting, Peter |
| contents | As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.''
To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations.
Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_24319 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making Wingate, David Carty, Sheryl Coates, Joshua Feldman, Daniel Fulda, Nancy Howell, Larry Israelson, Brett Jacobs, Dallin Karr, Jonathan Kimes, John Paul Kincaid, Elisabeth Martens, Paul Mobley, Gavin Pinheiro, Suzana Slemboski, Lindsay Whiting, Peter Machine Learning As large language models become a default source of guidance on personal, moral, and existential questions, it matters whether they draw on the religious frameworks that have historically shaped such reasoning, or systematically omit them. In this paper, we ask a deliberately narrow question: when posed an everyday ethical question for which religious perspectives may be valuable, do LLMs invoke religion at all? In contrast to benchmarks that look for the presence of political leanings or social bias, we look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs. We term this ``omissive bias.'' To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions, sourced from in-the-wild chat transcripts and faith-community contributors, paired with an LLM-as-judge rubric that gives full credit for any mention of a religion, a religious practice, or a religious leader. The questions are not themselves about religion--they are open-ended questions about grief, forgiveness, relationships, purpose, and honesty, where religion is one valuable perspective among several. We also run a human-subjects survey to compare LLM behavior against human expectations. Evaluating 27 models, we find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations. The omission is asymmetric: models invoke religion more readily for abstract existential questions (meaning, death, truth) than for the practical personal situations--grief, marriage, family conflict, addiction--where many people most rely on it. It is not our purpose to adjudicate which values LLMs should hold. We argue, more modestly, that current LLM responses overlook critical opportunities to reflect religious frameworks that many people draw on when navigating personal and ethical challenges. |
| title | Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making |
| topic | Machine Learning |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24319 |