Skip to content
Sprint projectJun 21, 2026Somalia

SomaliCrowS: A Benchmark for Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models Using the Somali Language

Abdullahi Hassan · Team EA Somalia AI Safety Lab

Submitted to Global South AI Safety Hackathon. Sprint projects are early-stage work by participants, not Apart Research publications.

Read the report

Report: SomaliCrowS: A Benchmark for Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models Using the Somali Language

Code (opens in new tab)More on huggingface.co (opens in new tab)
Share

Large language models are now used in education, healthcare, and public services across Somali-speaking communities. But most bias-testing benchmarks are built for English, so we don't know if these models treat Somali text fairly. We introduce SomaliCrowS, the first benchmark for measuring gender bias in language models using the Somali language. Following the CrowS-Pairs method, we built 220 sentence pairs across seven categories, Politics, Business, Leadership, STEM, Family, Occupation, and Education, where the only difference between sentences is the subject's gender. We tested XLM-RoBERTa on these pairs by comparing how likely the model thought each version was. The model favored the male version in 87.3% of all pairs, and every category showed a statistically significant departure from an unbiased 50/50 split (binomial tests, p < 0.05). Bias was most pronounced in Leadership (97.5% male-preferred) and Politics (largest mean log-probability gap, −7.096), and weakest in Education (67.5%, −0.164). These results show clear gender bias in a widely used multilingual model when it processes Somali. SomaliCrowS gives researchers a reusable tool to catch this kind of bias before deploying AI in Somali-speaking communities.

Reviews

Judging this Sprint?

Review this project

Your public critique appears on this page without your name. Your private critique is not published; only the Apart team reads it. If you agree below, we share your review with grantmaking.ai (opens in new tab) and the Transformative AI Fund so strong projects can be funded.

Not shown on this page.

Shown on this page, without your name.

Only the Apart team reads this, and funders if you agree below.

Share my name publicly on grantmaking.ai *
Share my private critique with funders *

How much would this matter for AI safety if it worked? How innovative is it? For scores of 4-5: is this actually new to the field, or replicating recent work?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Negligible. No clear problem addressed, or no meaningful novelty.
  2. 2Limited. Addresses a real problem but with a generic or well-trodden approach. Incremental at best.
  3. 3Moderate. Clear problem with a reasonable approach; some novelty in framing or method beyond routine application of existing tools.
  4. 4Significant. Important problem with an original approach, or identifies a neglected problem area. A valuable contribution others could build on.
  5. 5Exceptional. Tackles a critical AI safety problem with a genuinely novel approach, or opens a new research direction. Clear theory of change. You'd be excited to share this with researchers in the area.

How sound are methodology, implementation, and findings?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Seriously flawed. Methodology broken, results uninterpretable, or implementation doesn't work.
  2. 2Weak. Approach has significant gaps: missing validation, flawed experimental design, or incomplete implementation.
  3. 3Competent. Technically solid given the short duration. Methodology makes sense, results are interpretable, limitations acknowledged, work builds toward clear conclusions.
  4. 4Strong. Thorough methodology with convincing validation. Results clearly support conclusions. Immediately useful for future work.
  5. 5Exceptional. Ambitious scope executed rigorously. Surprising findings, novel methods, or unusually robust validation.

How clearly are work, findings, and impact potential communicated?

Scoring guide
  1. 1Incomprehensible. Cannot determine what the project is actually claiming or doing.
  2. 2Hard to follow. Key information buried, missing, or diluted by excessive length. Significant effort to extract main points.
  3. 3Clear enough. Can understand the problem, approach, and results without undue effort. Core content clearly present: problem, method, findings, limitations.
  4. 4Well presented. Easy to follow, well-structured, appropriate level of detail. Target audience would get it quickly.
  5. 5Exceptionally clear. A pleasure to read. Complex ideas made accessible. Could serve as a model for how to present this type of work.

  1. On Impact Potential and Innovation, it was quite strong. To push this toward an "Exceptional" (5), future iterations of the work could introduce a genuinely novel evaluation method tailored specifically to the linguistic or cultural nuances of Somali, rather than relying exclusively on a Western-developed framework like CrowS-Pairs.

  2. You built the first way to measure gender bias in AI models for the Somali language, which matters because these models already get used in Somali schools and services with no bias check today. The execution is clean, and you published the data and notebook so others can reuse it. The leadership and politics results are believable. Two things to be aware of. The method is a direct adaptation of an existing English benchmark, so the contribution is really the language, not the technique. And you measure the model's internal preference rather than what a real user would see in a reply, so I'd run the same tests on a model people actually chat with. Gender is a good start. Clan and ethnicity can carry Somali bias and would make this far more useful.

  3. SomaliCrowS fills a real gap and the CrowS-Pairs adaptation is methodologically appropriate and clearly executed. The most important next step is formal community validation. The benchmark is built on one researcher's judgment about culturally salient stereotypes

Cite this project

@misc{hassan2026somalicrows,
  title = {{SomaliCrowS: A Benchmark for Evaluating Gender Bias in Large Language Models Using the Somali Language}},
  author = {Abdullahi Hassan},
  year = {2026},
  month = jun,
  note = {Submitted to Global South AI Safety Hackathon, an Apart Research Sprint},
  howpublished = {\url{https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/somalicrows-a-benchmark-for-evaluating-gender-bias-in-large-language-models-using-the-somali-language-xw3c}},
  url = {https://apartresearch.com/sprints/projects/somalicrows-a-benchmark-for-evaluating-gender-bias-in-large-language-models-using-the-somali-language-xw3c}
}

Build something like this at the next Sprint

AI Collusion Research Sprint · Oct 23 - 25, 2026