How Deep Is Representational Bias in LLMs? The Cases of Caste and Religion

Representational bias in large language models (LLMs) has predominantly been measured through single-response interactions and has focused on Global North-centric identities like race and gender. We expand on that research by conducting a systematic audit of GPT-4 Turbo to reveal how deeply encoded representational biases are and how they extend to less-explored dimensions of identity. We prompt GPT-4 Turbo to generate over 7,200 stories about significant life events (such as weddings) in India, using prompts designed to encourage diversity to varying extents. Comparing the diversity of religious and caste representation in the outputs against the actual population distribution in India as recorded in census data, we quantify the presence and “stickiness” of representational bias in the LLM for religion and caste. We find that GPT-4 responses consistently overrepresent culturally dominant groups far beyond their statistical representation, despite prompts intended to encourage representational diversity. Our findings also suggest that representational bias in LLMs has a winner-takes-all quality that is more biased than the likely distribution bias in their training data, and repeated prompt-based nudges have limited and inconsistent efficacy in dislodging these biases. These results suggest that diversifying training data alone may not be sufficient to correct LLM bias, highlighting the need for more fundamental changes in model development.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Published
2025-10-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1609/aies.v8i3.36718
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Legal Language and Interpretation
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
15.98
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How Deep Is Representational Bias in LLMs? The Cases of Caste and Religion

Sunayana Sitaram, Monojit Choudhury, Kalika Bali, Agrima Seth et al.
1 citations
Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society
Legal Language and Interpretation
15.98
article

How Deep Is Representational Bias in LLMs? The Cases of Caste and Religion

Sunayana Sitaram, Monojit Choudhury, Kalika Bali, Agrima Seth, Kentaro Toyama, Aditya Vashistha
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Representational bias in large language models (LLMs) has predominantly been measured through single-response interactions and has focused on Global North-centric identities like race and gender. We expand on that research by conducting a systematic audit of GPT-4 Turbo to reveal how deeply encoded representational biases are and how they extend to less-explored dimensions of identity. We prompt GPT-4 Turbo to generate over 7,200 stories about significant life events (such as weddings) in India, using prompts designed to encourage diversity to varying extents. Comparing the diversity of religious and caste representation in the outputs against the actual population distribution in India as recorded in census data, we quantify the presence and “stickiness” of representational bias in the LLM for religion and caste. We find that GPT-4 responses consistently overrepresent culturally dominant groups far beyond their statistical representation, despite prompts intended to encourage representational diversity. Our findings also suggest that representational bias in LLMs has a winner-takes-all quality that is more biased than the likely distribution bias in their training data, and repeated prompt-based nudges have limited and inconsistent efficacy in dislodging these biases. These results suggest that diversifying training data alone may not be sufficient to correct LLM bias, highlighting the need for more fundamental changes in model development.

Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and SocietyVol. 8(3)
Cornell University (US), University of Michigan (US), Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (AE), Microsoft Research (India) (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Legal Language and Interpretation
15.98
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.