Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
arXiv:2605.24319 (cs)
[Submitted on 23 May 2026]
Title:Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making
Authors:David Wingate, Sheryl Carty, Joshua Coates, Daniel Feldman, Nancy Fulda, Larry Howell, Brett Israelson, Dallin Jacobs, Jonathan Karr, John Paul Kimes, Elisabeth Kincaid, Paul Martens, Gavin Mobley, Suzana Pinheiro, Lindsay Slemboski, Peter Whiting
View a PDF of the paper titled Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making, by David Wingate and 15 other authors
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract: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.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2605.24319 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2605.24319v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.24319
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making, by David Wingate and 15 other authors
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
IArxiv recommender toggle
IArxiv Recommender
(What is IArxiv?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Algometrics: Forecasting Under Algorithmic Feedback
May 26
-
Parameter Efficient Multi-Class Intelligent Scheduling for Multimodal Online Distributed Industrial Anomaly Detection
May 26
-
CAFD: Concept-Aware DNN Fault Detection using VLMs
May 26
-
Towards Verifiable Transformers: Solver-Checkable Circuit Explanations
May 26
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.