# Sima AIunty: Caste Audit in LLM-Driven Matchmaking

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29288 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.29288/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 82 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Mar 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09635/) (2019)
- [Datasheets for Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.09010/) (2018)
- [Model Cards for Model Reporting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.03993/) (2018)
- [A General Language Assistant as a Laboratory for Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.00861/) (2021)
- [Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.04359/) (2021)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.00973/) (2020)
- [Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.02478/) (2020)
- [Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyond](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2101.09995/) (2021)
- [Explainability Fact Sheets: A Framework for Systematic Assessment of Explainable Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.05100/) (2019)
- [Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Support](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.05675/) (2021)
- [Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.03731/) (2019)
- [How Different Groups Prioritize Ethical Values for Responsible AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.07722/) (2022)
- [ChatGPT Perpetuates Gender Bias in Machine Translation and Ignores Non-Gendered Pronouns: Findings across Bengali and Five other Low-Resource Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10510/) (2023)
- [Charting the Sociotechnical Gap in Explainable AI: A Framework to Address the Gap in XAI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.00799/) (2023)
- [A Sociotechnical View of Algorithmic Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.09253/) (2021)
- [Overcoming Failures of Imagination in AI Infused System Development and Deployment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.13416/) (2020)
- [How Deep Is Representational Bias in LLMs? The Cases of Caste and Religion](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03712/) (2025)
- [Sensing Wellbeing in the Workplace, Why and For Whom? Envisioning Impacts with Organizational Stakeholders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.06794/) (2023)
- [DECASTE: Unveiling Caste Stereotypes in Large Language Models through Multi-Dimensional Bias Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14971/) (2025)
- [Interpretations, Representations, and Stereotypes of Caste within Text-to-Image Generators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.01590/) (2024)
- [TALES: A Taxonomy and Analysis of Cultural Representations in LLM-generated Stories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21322/) (2025)
- [RubRIX: Rubric-Driven Risk Mitigation in Caregiver-AI Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.13235/) (2026)
- [Can Workers Meaningfully Consent to Workplace Wellbeing Technologies?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.07242/) (2023)
- [Can we Debias Social Stereotypes in AI-Generated Images? Examining Text-to-Image Outputs and User Perceptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.20692/) (2025)
- [Smart, Responsible, and Upper Caste Only: Measuring Caste Attitudes through Large-Scale Analysis of Matrimonial Profiles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.04176/) (2019)
- [Understanding the Prevalence of Caste: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Caste-based Marginalization on X](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.02810/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Social and personal decisions in relational domains such as matchmaking are deeply entwined with cultural norms and historical hierarchies, and can potentially be shaped by algorithmic and AI-mediated assessments of compatibility, acceptance, and stability. In South Asian contexts, caste remains a central aspect of marital decision-making, yet little is known about how contemporary large language models (LLMs) reproduce or disrupt caste-based stratification in such settings. In this work, we conduct a controlled audit of caste bias in LLM-mediated matchmaking evaluations using real-world matrimonial profiles. We vary caste identity across Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya, Shudra, and Dalit, and income across five buckets, and evaluate five LLM families (GPT, Gemini, Llama, Qwen, and BharatGPT). Models are prompted to assess profiles along dimensions of social acceptance, marital stability, and cultural compatibility. Our analysis reveals consistent hierarchical patterns across models: same-caste matches are rated most favorably, with average ratings up to 25% higher (on a 10-point scale) than inter-caste matches, which are further ordered according to traditional caste hierarchy. These findings highlight how existing caste hierarchies are reproduced in LLM decision-making and underscore the need for culturally grounded evaluation and intervention strategies in AI systems deployed in socially sensitive domains, where such systems risk reinforcing historical forms of exclusion.