RupeeBias: Auditing Demographic Bias in Indian Economic Guidance from Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Individuals turn to large language models (LLMs) for guidance across a wide range of economic tasks, from comparing loan options and planning savings to deciding what raise to ask for or how much to charge for their services. LLMs are known to reproduce social biases, and biased economic guidance may influence what users believe they are worth, what they ask for, and what they ultimately accept. This risk is especially salient in India, where economic outcomes are shaped by demographic categories such as caste and urban-rural location. Existing LLM bias benchmarks, however, are largely designed around Western demographic categories and therefore miss key axes of economic disparity in the Indian context. We introduce RupeeBias, a benchmark for auditing demographic bias in LLM-generated economic guidance across Indian economic settings. RupeeBias consists of 39,150 prompts spanning four use cases: salary estimation, salary increment estimation, counter-offer recommendation, and service pricing recommendation. The benchmark follows a single-attribute counterfactual design, holding the description of the user's qualifications, experience, or service offering fixed while varying one demographic identifier at a time. RupeeBias covers 87 India-specific demographic identifiers across six axes: caste, religion, regional identity, gender, disability, and urban-rural location, with all prompts constructed in both English and Hinglish. We evaluate nine LLMs on RupeeBias and find systematic demographic disparities across all six axes. For otherwise identical prompts that differ only in demographic identifier, LLM-generated economic outputs differ by 20.2% on average. We publicly release RupeeBias to support future research on demographic bias in LLM-generated economic guidance across India-specific demographic and economic contexts.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Sep 2026.
Builds on
16 of 68 references.
References · 16
- 2025DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Modelscited by 815
- 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 710
- 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
- 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 659
- 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 639
- 2023How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?cited by 270
- 2024What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Knowcited by 110
- 2021Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyondcited by 104
- 2024"You Gotta be a Doctor, Lin": An Investigation of Name-Based Bias of Large Language Models in Employment Recommendationscited by 33
- 2024IndiBias: A Benchmark Dataset to Measure Social Biases in Language Models for Indian Contextcited by 32
- 2023Indian-BhED: A Dataset for Measuring India-Centric Biases in Large Language Modelscited by 18
- 2025DECASTE: Unveiling Caste Stereotypes in Large Language Models through Multi-Dimensional Bias Analysiscited by 12
4 more
- 2025FairI Tales: Evaluation of Fairness in Indian Contexts with a Focus on Bias and Stereotypescited by 9
- 2024Asking an AI for salary negotiation advice is a matter of concern: Controlled experimental perturbation of ChatGPT for protected and non-protected group discrimination on a contextual task with no clear ground truth answerscited by 3
- 2016A Large-scale Analysis of the Marketplace Characteristics in Fiverrcited by 1
- 2026Quantifying Gender Bias in Large Language Models: When ChatGPT Becomes a Hiring Managercited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.