← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2610.38239 · v1
The Indian Financial Automated Advice Bias (IFAAB) Dataset : Auditing Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in LLM-Generated Financial Advice in India
首次提交 2026-10-28 11:39
版本更新 2026-10-28 11:39
雷达观测 2026-10-30 09:53
摘要
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.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-10-28 11:39 · 最新观测版本
The Indian Financial Automated Advice Bias (IFAAB) Dataset : Auditing Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in LLM-Generated Financial Advice in India
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.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗