Analysis of LLM Bias (Chinese Propaganda & Anti-US Sentiment) in DeepSeek-R1 vs. ChatGPT o3-mini-high
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape public understanding and civic decisions, yet their ideological neutrality is a growing concern. While existing research has explored various forms of LLM bias, a direct, cross-lingual comparison of models with differing geopolitical alignments-specifically a PRC-system model versus a non-PRC counterpart-has been lacking. This study addresses this gap by systematically evaluating DeepSeek-R1 (PRC-aligned) against ChatGPT o3-mini-high (non-PRC) for Chinese-state propaganda and anti-U.S. sentiment. We developed a novel corpus of 1,200 de-contextualized, reasoning-oriented questions derived from Chinese-language news, presented in Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and English. Answers from both models (7,200 total) were assessed using a hybrid evaluation pipeline combining rubric-guided GPT-4o scoring with human annotation. Our findings reveal significant model-level and language-dependent biases. DeepSeek-R1 consistently exhibited substantially higher proportions of both propaganda and anti-U.S. bias compared to ChatGPT o3-mini-high, which remained largely free of anti-U.S. sentiment and showed lower propaganda levels. For DeepSeek-R1, Simplified Chinese queries elicited the highest bias rates; these diminished in Traditional Chinese and were nearly absent in English. Notably, DeepSeek-R1 occasionally responded in Simplified Chinese to Traditional Chinese queries and amplified existing PRC-aligned terms in its Chinese answers, demonstrating an "invisible loudspeaker" effect. Furthermore, such biases were not confined to overtly political topics but also permeated cultural and lifestyle content, particularly in DeepSeek-R1.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 8 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jun 2025.
Builds on
8 of 10 references.
References · 8
- 2023The political ideology of conversational AI: Converging evidence on ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientationcited by 189
- 2023A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failurescited by 168
- 2024Measuring Political Bias in Large Language Models: What Is Said and How It Is Saidcited by 89
- 2024Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigationcited by 77
- 2024Hidden Persuaders: LLMs' Political Leaning and Their Influence on Voterscited by 71
- 2024Gender Bias in Large Language Models across Multiple Languagescited by 35
- 2025Large Means Left: Political Bias in Large Language Models Increases with Their Number of Parameterscited by 12
- 2021Dataset of Propaganda Techniques of the State-Sponsored Information Operation of the People's Republic of Chinacited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025A Cross-Cultural Comparison of LLM-based Public Opinion Simulation: Evaluating Chinese and U.S. Models on Diverse Societies
- 2025Debiasing International Attitudes: LLM Agents for Simulating US-China Perception Changes
- 2026Mind the Gap: Pitfalls of LLM Alignment with Asian Public Opinion
- 2025Information Suppression in Large Language Models: Auditing, Quantifying, and Characterizing Censorship in DeepSeek
- 2025Steering Towards Fairness: Mitigating Political Bias in LLMs
- 2025R1dacted: Investigating Local Censorship in DeepSeek's R1 Language Model
- 2025Measuring Political Preferences in AI Systems: An Integrative Approach
- 2025Language, Culture, and Ideology: Personalizing Offensiveness Detection in Political Tweets with Reasoning LLMs