SectEval: Evaluating the Latent Sectarian Preferences of Large Language Models

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 religion A->B vs. religion B->A , 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-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 at scale can have real-world implications.

Large language models are increasingly consulted for Islamic knowledge, yet no comprehensive benchmark evaluates their performance across core Islamic disciplines. We introduce IslamicMMLU, a benchmark of 10,013 multiple-choice questions spanning three tracks: Quran (2,013 questions), Hadith (4,000 questions), and Fiqh (jurisprudence, 4,000 questions). Each track is formed of multiple types of questions to examine LLMs capabilities handling different aspects of Islamic knowledge. The benchmark is used to create the IslamicMMLU public leaderboard for evaluating LLMs, and we initially evaluate 26 LLMs, where their averaged accuracy across the three tracks varied between 39.8% to 93.8% (by Gemini 3 Flash). The Quran track shows the widest span (99.3% to 32.4%), while the Fiqh track includes a novel madhab (Islamic school of jurisprudence) bias detection task revealing variable school-of-thought preferences across models. Arabic-specific models show mixed results, but they all underperform compared to frontier models. The evaluation code and leaderboard are made publicly available.

Five years after the discovery of persistent anti-Muslim bias in large language models, most evaluations remain confined to single-turn prompt completion, a setting that no longer reflects how frontier LLMs are deployed. We introduce MIRAGE (Muslim-Identity Reasoning and Agentic Generation Evaluation), a benchmark of 1{,}200 prompts spanning three deployment-realistic conditions: direct completion, chain-of-thought reasoning, and simulated agentic decision-making across content moderation, lending triage, refugee claim summarization, and hiring screens. Across six frontier models, we find that (i) chain-of-thought reasoning amplifies rather than suppresses Muslim-violence associations by 12--34% relative to direct completion, (ii) agentic decisions exhibit a 9--22 percentage-point asymmetry between Muslim and matched non-Muslim cases on identical evidence, and (iii) bias is sharply time-coupled to retrieved news context, increasing 18--27% under recent-conflict retrieval. Existing prompt-based mitigations transfer poorly across our three conditions, suppressing direct-completion bias while leaving agentic asymmetry largely intact. We release MIRAGE and an open evaluation harness to support targeted mitigation research.