[2605.24319] Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making
-->
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<br>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<br>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:<br>arXiv:2605.24319 [cs.LG]
(or<br>arXiv:2605.24319v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.24319
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history<br>From: David Wingate [view email]<br>[v1]<br>Sat, 23 May 2026 00:55:36 UTC (1,063 KB)
Full-text links:<br>Access Paper:
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<br>View PDF<br>HTML (experimental)<br>TeX Source
view license
Current browse context:
cs.LG
next >
new<br>recent<br>| 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
References & Citations
NASA ADS<br>Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
export BibTeX citation<br>Loading...
BibTeX formatted citation
×
loading...
Data provided by:
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
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, Media
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
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
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<br>(What is IArxiv?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
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...