Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40216860›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Detecting implicit biases of large language models with Bayesian hypothesis testing.

Shijing Si, Xiaoming Jiang, Qinliang Su, Lawrence Carin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shijing SiSchool of Economics and Finance, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, 201620, China.
Xiaoming JiangInstitute of Language Sciences, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, 201620, China. xiaoming.jiang@shisu.edu.cn.
Qinliang SuSchool of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510006, China.
Lawrence CarinDepartment of Electronic and Computer Engineering, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Bayes TheoremBiasHumansLarge Language ModelsBayes factorFairnessGroup biasLarge language models

Identifiers

PMID40216860
PMCPMC11992123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.