When AI Takes Sides on Questions of Faith: Persistent Asymmetries in AI-Mediated Faith Guidance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22975v1
• Date: Thu, 21 May 2026 19:05:09 GMT
• Title: When AI Takes Sides on Questions of Faith: Persistent Asymmetries in AI-Mediated Faith Guidance
• Abstract summary: When asked for advice on hypothetical faith transitions from one religion to another, models exhibited consistent asymmetries.<n>On average Catholic, Bah', and Sikh religions were broadly favored.<n>Atheists, Agnostics, and Jehovah's Witnesses were primarily disfavored.
• Score: 1.163745353081629
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We ask whether large language models (LLMs) treat queries about religious conversion symmetrically. The answer is no. When asked for advice on hypothetical faith transitions from one religion to another, then asked the reversed question, models exhibited consistent asymmetries, favoring some religions while subtly discouraging conversion to others. On average Catholic, Bahá'í, and Sikh religions were broadly favored (high support for joining, low support for leaving), while Atheists, Agnostics, and Jehovah's Witnesses were primarily disfavored. Patterns varied by model size and model provider, with Grok 4.20 exhibiting the strongest asymmetries. We tested 20 commercial and open-source language models across 182 religion pairings using a human-verified LLM-as-a-judge framework. Each model was probed via interactions with a simulated user asking for advice on a potential faith conversion. Models tended to use more encouraging language for some faith transitions over others; these patterns were systematically repeatable across multiple trials. All LLMs tested exhibited reproducible asymmetry, though the pattern of preferences differed for each. Overall preferences persist across multiple question phrasings and variations in the religious pairing dataset. Taken together, these results suggest that asymmetry is a robust property of model behavior rather than an artifact of how the models' answers were scored. It is important to consider that any imbalances deployed and reproduced en masse can have real-world implications.

Related papers

• VisualFLIP: Do Predictions Depend on Task-Critical Visual Evidence in Multimodal Reasoning? [79.44137632338062]
  When a multimodal large language model answers a visual reasoning question correctly, is the prediction actually supported by the task-critical visual evidence?<n>We introduce VisualFLIP, a paired benchmark with 1,374 images arranged as same-question pairs across cardinality, attribute, spatial, and logic tasks.<n>We evaluate 24 MLLMs with pair accuracy, which requires solving both sides of a pair, and Collapse Rate (CR), which measures how often a model that solves at least one side repeats the same non-empty answer for both images.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T22:06:07Z)
• Investigating the Interplay between Contextual and Parametric Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness under Optimization [41.908827893947525]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) faithfulness is typically evaluated under two disjoint paradigms.<n>We propose FaithMate, a unified preference-alignment interface for optimizing models towards either faithfulness paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-24T09:16:55Z)
• Omissive Bias in Religious Representation: Benchmarking LLM Answers to Everyday Ethical Decision-making [2.910241872147875]
  We look for the absence of religious representation as a dimension of value alignment and bias in LLMs.<n>To measure omissive bias, we contribute the AllFaith Religious Representation Benchmark: 150 ethically and personally salient questions.<n>We find that LLMs consistently underrepresent religion relative to human expectations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T00:55:36Z)
• To Think or Not To Think, That is The Question for Large Reasoning Models in Theory of Mind Tasks [56.11584171938381]
  Theory of Mind (ToM) assesses whether models can infer hidden mental states such as beliefs, desires, and intentions.<n>Recent progress in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) has boosted step-by-step inference in mathematics and coding.<n>We present a systematic study of nine advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) comparing reasoning models with non-reasoning models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:16:13Z)
• Surface Fairness, Deep Bias: A Comparative Study of Bias in Language Models [45.41676783204022]
  We investigate various proxy measures of bias in large language models (LLMs)<n>We find that evaluating models with pre-prompted personae on a multi-subject benchmark (MMLU) leads to negligible and mostly random differences in scores.<n>With the recent trend for LLM assistant memory and personalization, these problems open up from a different angle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T08:47:40Z)
• Chain-of-Thought Reasoning In The Wild Is Not Always Faithful [3.048751803239144]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has significantly advanced state-of-the-art AI capabilities.<n>We show that unfaithful CoT can also occur on realistic prompts with no artificial bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T17:56:30Z)
• Rectifying Belief Space via Unlearning to Harness LLMs' Reasoning [36.74368293113009]
  We propose a method to rectify the belief space by suppressing spurious beliefs while simultaneously enhancing true ones.<n>Our approach first identifies the beliefs that lead to incorrect or correct answers by prompting the model to generate textual explanations.<n>We then apply unlearning to suppress the identified spurious beliefs and enhance the true ones, effectively rectifying the model's belief space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T00:57:45Z)
• Are DeepSeek R1 And Other Reasoning Models More Faithful? [2.0429566123690455]
  We evaluate three reasoning models based on Qwen-2.5, Gemini-2, and DeepSeek-V3-Base.<n>We test whether models can describe how a cue in their prompt influences their answer to MMLU questions.<n> Reasoning models describe cues that influence them much more reliably than all the non-reasoning models tested.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:31:45Z)
• Rethinking LLM Uncertainty: A Multi-Agent Approach to Estimating Black-Box Model Uncertainty [47.95943057892318]
  Quantifying uncertainty in black-box LLMs is vital for reliable responses and scalable oversight.<n>We introduce DiverseAgentEntropy, a novel, theoretically-grounded method employing multi-agent interaction for uncertainty estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T18:52:40Z)
• Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models [55.2480439325792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors. This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T16:49:22Z)
• Getting MoRE out of Mixture of Language Model Reasoning Experts [71.61176122960464]
  We propose a Mixture-of-Reasoning-Experts (MoRE) framework that ensembles diverse specialized language models. We specialize the backbone language model with prompts optimized for different reasoning categories, including factual, multihop, mathematical, and commonsense reasoning. Our human study confirms that presenting expert predictions and the answer selection process helps annotators more accurately calibrate when to trust the system's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:00:51Z)
• Language Models with Rationality [57.37201135072838]
  Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at question-answering (QA) It is not always clear how (or even if) an answer follows from their latent "beliefs"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T17:04:25Z)
• Do Language Models Have Beliefs? Methods for Detecting, Updating, and Visualizing Model Beliefs [76.6325846350907]
  Dennett (1995) famously argues that even thermostats have beliefs, on the view that a belief is simply an informational state decoupled from any motivational state. In this paper, we discuss approaches to detecting when models have beliefs about the world, and we improve on methods for updating model beliefs to be more truthful.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-26T18:33:59Z)
• UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questions [68.81749777034409]
  We present UNQOVER, a framework to probe and quantify biases through underspecified questions. We show that a naive use of model scores can lead to incorrect bias estimates due to two forms of reasoning errors. We use this metric to analyze four important classes of stereotypes: gender, nationality, ethnicity, and religion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T01:49:52Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.