ArticleScientific reports2025
Detecting implicit biases of large language models with Bayesian hypothesis testing.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Positive sentiments in early academic literature on DeepSeek: a cross-disciplinary mini review.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the remarkable performance of large language models (LLMs), such as generative pre-trained Transformers (GPTs), across various tasks, they often perpetuate social biases and stereotypes embedded in their training data. In this paper, we introduce a novel framework that reformulates bias detection in LLMs as a hypothesis testing problem, where the null hypothesis [Formula: see text] represents the absence of implicit bias. Our framework leverages binary-choice questions to measure social bias in both open-source and proprietary LLMs accessible via APIs. We demonstrate the flexibility of our approach by integrating classical statistical methods, such as the exact binomial test, with Bayesian inference using Bayes factors for bias detection and quantification. Extensive experiments are conducted on prominent models, including ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-Turbo), DeepSeek-V3, and Llama-3.1-70B, utilizing publicly available datasets such as BBQ, CrowS-Pairs (in both English and French), and Winogender. While the exact Binomial test fails to distinguish between no evidence of bias and evidence of no bias, our results underscore the advantages of Bayes factors, particularly their capacity to quantify evidence for both competing hypotheses and their robustness to small sample size. Additionally, our experiments reveal that the bias behavior of LLMs is largely consistent across the English and French versions of the CrowS-Pairs dataset, with subtle differences likely arising from variations in social norms across linguistic and cultural contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.