Abstract:While Large Language Models (LLM) have created a massive technological impact in the past decade, allowing for human-enabled applications, they can produce output that contains stereotypes and biases, especially when using low-resource languages. This can be of great ethical concern when dealing with sensitive topics such as religion. As a means toward making LLMS more fair, we explore bias from a religious perspective in Bengali, focusing specifically on two main religious dialects: Hindu and Muslim-majority dialects. Here, we perform different experiments and audit showing the comparative analysis of different sentences using three commonly used LLMs: ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot, pertaining to the Hindu and Muslim dialects of specific words and showcasing which ones catch the social biases and which do not. Furthermore, we analyze our findings and relate them to potential reasons and evaluation perspectives, considering their global impact with over 300 million speakers worldwide. With this work, we hope to establish the rigor for creating more fairness in LLMs, as these are widely used as creative writing agents.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### The Problem the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper attempts to address the issue of bias in large language models (LLMs) when dealing with Bengali religious dialects. Specifically, the researchers focus on whether there is social bias when using LLMs for the two main religious dialect groups—Hindu and Muslim dialects. Through experiments and evaluations, the paper explores whether different LLMs exhibit bias when generating religion-related sentences and analyzes the causes of these biases and their potential social impacts. ### Main Research Content 1. **Background and Motivation**: - Despite significant technological advancements in large language models, they may generate stereotypes and biases when producing text, especially when dealing with low-resource languages like Bengali. - Religion is a sensitive topic, so it is crucial to ensure that LLMs do not exhibit bias when handling religion-related content. 2. **Research Methods**: - The researchers constructed a dataset containing 20 sentences that include vocabulary influenced by religious dialects. - Experiments were conducted using three commonly used LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot) to obtain specific outputs through different prompts and manually evaluate the classification of these outputs (Hindu, Muslim, or neutral). - Multiple experiments were conducted to ensure the consistency and reliability of the results. 3. **Experimental Setup**: - **Basic Evaluation**: Testing the LLMs' outputs without specifying any religious information. - **Impact of Mentioning Religion**: Explicitly mentioning religion in the prompts to see if it improves the LLMs' ability to recognize religious context. - **Memory and Understanding Ability of LLMs**: Testing whether LLMs can remember previously mentioned religions and adjust subsequent responses accordingly without explicitly mentioning religion each time. - **Impact of Relevant Text**: Providing context with religious connotations to see if LLMs can accurately infer the religious context. - **Context and Situational Dependency**: Classifying sentences based on their usage context to evaluate dialect preference in different situations. 4. **Results and Discussion**: - **Basic Evaluation**: Results showed that ChatGPT, Gemini, and Microsoft Copilot exhibited a certain preference for generating Muslim dialect sentences while generating fewer Hindu dialect sentences. All three models only generated one neutral response. - **Impact of Mentioning Religion**: Explicitly mentioning religion significantly improved the accuracy of the outputs, but when mentioning Hinduism, LLMs still generated about 25-30% Muslim dialect sentences. - **Memory and Understanding Ability of LLMs**: Performance significantly declined when religion was not explicitly mentioned each time, especially for Gemini and Microsoft Copilot in handling Hindu dialects. - **Impact of Relevant Text**: When provided with context containing religious connotations, LLMs performed better in inferring the religious context but still generated incorrect dialects 25-35% of the time. - **Context and Situational Dependency**: In different contexts (food, work, objects, relationships, abstract concepts), LLMs performed better in generating Muslim dialect sentences and worse in generating Hindu dialect sentences. 5. **Evaluation Perspectives**: - Methods for evaluating religious bias include BLEU scores, WinoMT benchmarks, and a combination of qualitative and quantitative human evaluations. - The researchers also introduced various algorithmic and human-centered evaluation methods to comprehensively assess the performance of language models. 6. **Mitigation Strategies**: - Common bias mitigation strategies include post-processing LLM outputs and adjusting embedding subspaces. - Creating training datasets that include diverse religious and cultural backgrounds to ensure equal representation. - Continuously monitoring and frequently retraining LLMs to reduce religious bias in outputs. ### Conclusion Through experiments and evaluations, this paper reveals the issue of bias in large language models when dealing with Bengali religious dialects and proposes various mitigation strategies. The research results emphasize the importance of addressing bias issues in language technology to achieve fairness and inclusivity.

Exploring Bengali Religious Dialect Biases in Large Language Models with Evaluation Perspectives

Social Bias in Large Language Models For Bangla: An Empirical Study on Gender and Religious Bias

Indian-BhED: A Dataset for Measuring India-Centric Biases in Large Language Models

With a Grain of SALT: Are LLMs Fair Across Social Dimensions?

BenLLMEval: A Comprehensive Evaluation into the Potentials and Pitfalls of Large Language Models on Bengali NLP

Do Large Language Models Speak All Languages Equally? A Comparative Study in Low-Resource Settings

A Comprehensive Survey of Bias in LLMs: Current Landscape and Future Directions

Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey

Protected group bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models

Towards Resource Efficient and Interpretable Bias Mitigation in Large Language Models

Breaking Bias, Building Bridges: Evaluation and Mitigation of Social Biases in LLMs via Contact Hypothesis

Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Models

From Bytes to Biases: Investigating the Cultural Self-Perception of Large Language Models

Evaluation of large language models using an Indian language LGBTI+ lexicon

Towards Auditing Large Language Models: Improving Text-based Stereotype Detection

Understanding Intrinsic Socioeconomic Biases in Large Language Models

Quantifying Bias in Agentic Large Language Models: A Benchmarking Approach

Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models

Evaluating Gender, Racial, and Age Biases in Large Language Models: A Comparative Analysis of Occupational and Crime Scenarios

Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective