arXiv preprint ·
The Indian Financial Automated Advice Bias (IFAAB) Dataset : Auditing Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in LLM-Generated Financial Advice in India
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
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.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computers & Society
From the Gettier Machine to Justified True Output: A Three-Step Account of Rational Trust in Generative AI
Unlocking with the Heart: Investigating User Perceptions of ECG-Based Biometric Authentication
Beauty Is Human: When People Love AI-Generated Art, They Think a Human Made It
Does the Citation Matter? Quality, Grounding, and Physician-Rubric Accuracy of Google's AI Overviews for Medical Information
IKTRACE: A Natural Language Processing Framework for Identifying Indigenous Knowledge Representation in Academic Literature
Get the few papers worth your time in Computers & Society every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.