Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Sima AIunty: Caste Audit in LLM-Driven Matchmaking

Atharva Naik, Shounok Kar, Varnika Sharma, Ashwin Rajadesingan, Koustuv Saha · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

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.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
  • The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
  • The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"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."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"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."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"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."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"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."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"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."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

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.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • In this work, we conduct a controlled audit of caste bias in LLM-mediated matchmaking evaluations using real-world matrimonial profiles.
  • 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…
  • 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…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • In this work, we conduct a controlled audit of caste bias in LLM-mediated matchmaking evaluations using real-world matrimonial profiles.
  • 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…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.