Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.38239

The Indian Financial Automated Advice Bias (IFAAB) Dataset : Auditing Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in LLM-Generated Financial Advice in India

Abstract

Large language models are increasingly used for financial guidance, yet little is known about whether their advice changes across social identities in Global South contexts. We introduce the Indian Financial Automated Advice Bias (IFAAB) benchmark, a counterfactual audit dataset of 31,734 GPT-4o-generated financial-advice responses for synthetic Indian personas varying by gender, caste, education, employment, residence, age, and district. Holding the underlying request fixed, we evaluate disparities in LLM-implied wealth, income, savings, projected gains, textual similarity, advice topics, and qualitative bias judgments. In the gender-only audit, male-labelled profiles receive 60.1\% higher initial total resources and 46.8\% higher post-advice total resources than comparable female-labelled profiles; in the caste-augmented audit, the post-advice total-resource gap remains 49.4\%. Adding district information reduces the aggregate post-advice total-resource gender gap to 7.9\%, revealing strong geographic conditioning. Standalone caste comparisons also show systematic stratification: relative to General-category profiles, OBC, SC, and ST profiles receive significantly lower post-advice total resources, respectively. Textual audits show low semantic similarity between paired gendered responses, with an average TF--IDF cosine similarity score of 0.44. Qualitative analysis shows that women are more often steered toward cautious saving, community support, and basic financial literacy, while men receive more growth-oriented advice involving investment, entrepreneurship, and asset accumulation. IFAAB provides a reusable benchmark for evaluating fairness, suitability, and consumer-protection risks in LLM-mediated financial advice, and highlights the need for locally grounded, intersectional evaluation of AI systems in high-stakes economic domains.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kriti Mahajan. 2026-10-28. The Indian Financial Automated Advice Bias (IFAAB) Dataset : Auditing Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in LLM-Generated Financial Advice in India. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.38239

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Evaluating Deception, Not Just Deepfakes

Deepfake detection is typically evaluated as a media-classification task: given a clip, determine whether it is synthetic. Yet benchmark performance is increasingly invoked to support broader claims about preventing deepfake-enabled deception in video calls, voice calls, and targeted communications. We argue that these claims require evidence across two distinct validity gaps. External validity concerns whether detection performance transfers across generators, processing pipelines, and communication channels. Consequential validity, as used here, concerns whether reliable detection translates into timely intervention and prevention of harmful actions. Even perfect synthetic-origin classification does not guarantee prevention when verification is unavailable, intervention occurs too late, or recipients disregard warnings. We therefore propose a scenario-level evaluation framework that integrates media evidence, interaction-level indicators grounded in speech act theory, conversational pragmatics, and influence principles, and operational outcomes. We define candidate measures of attack prevention, benign pass-through, intervention precision under explicit deployment base rates, and intervention timing. Our position is that deployment-oriented evaluation must measure not only whether synthetic media is detected, but whether deception is prevented without unnecessarily disrupting legitimate interactions. https://jesseeho.github.io/deepfake-deception/

cs.CY↗

From the Gettier Machine to Justified True Output: A Three-Step Account of Rational Trust in Generative AI

As generative artificial intelligence (AI) settles into everyday practices of inquiry, an old epistemological question returns in a new guise: when does a proposition a user takes from an AI output become something the user knows, and when is it rational to trust it as such? This paper argues that the characteristic failures of AI-mediated inquiry are precisely those that the justified-true-belief (JTB) tradition and its post-Gettier anti-luck refinements were built to diagnose, and it advances three claims. First, AI outputs inherit neither the presumptive warrant of testimony nor the reliabilist warrant of deterministic tools: unaudited trust in a calculator rests on a type-level reliability record, and for general-purpose generative models there is no type-stable process to which such a record could attach -- a practical form of the generality problem. Second, use that stops at obtaining an output turns generative AI into a Gettier machine: the user's fluency-based seeming of justification is disconnected from the truth of what is believed, and, as a clock running ten times too fast illustrates, sheer speed of production multiplies coincidental hits, inflating the appearance of reliability without improving the standing of any single hit. Third, the remedy is a three-step structure of use -- acquisition, understanding, independent verification -- whose first two steps answer to the classical belief and justification conditions and whose third answers to the post-Gettier sensitivity condition. The result is a stakes-indexed criterion of rational trust, justified true output (JTO), with an everyday test: "Had this been false, would I have noticed?" The criterion is defended against objections from over-demandingness, the extended mind, model improvement, and redundancy.

cs.CY↗

IKTRACE: A Natural Language Processing Framework for Identifying Indigenous Knowledge Representation in Academic Literature

As artificial intelligence systems increasingly rely on vast textual data, respectful and accurate representation of Indigenous Knowledge has become critical. This paper introduces IKTRACE, a natural language processing framework for identifying, analyzing, and organizing Indigenous Knowledge representations in academic literature while adhering to Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDsov) principles. We present a community-informed taxonomy co-developed with Inuit partners, comprising nine knowledge domains grounded in Indigenous Data Sovereignty principles. Building on this taxonomy, we implement a multi-method Knowledge identification pipeline using complementary natural language processing approaches. Outputs are integrated into a knowledge graph to support future expert and community validation. Applied to a corpus of Canadian Arctic research documents, IKTRACE demonstrated high accuracy and strong community relevance in expert validation. Our framework provides a scalable, ethically grounded foundation for Community-centered Knowledge validation and the development of Indigenous-informed AI systems.

cs.CY↗