mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT and DeepSeek Across Key NLP Tasks: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Domain-Specific Performance

arXiv 2506.18501 ↗First posted 23 Jun 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in natural language processing (NLP) tasks has sparked significant interest in evaluating their effectiveness across diverse applications. While models like ChatGPT and DeepSeek have shown strong results in many NLP domains, a comprehensive evaluation is needed to understand their strengths, weaknesses, and domain-specific abilities. This is critical as these models are applied to various tasks, from sentiment analysis to more nuanced tasks like textual entailment and translation. This study aims to evaluate ChatGPT and DeepSeek across five key NLP tasks: sentiment analysis, topic classification, text summarization, machine translation, and textual entailment. A structured experimental protocol is used to ensure fairness and minimize variability. Both models are tested with identical, neutral prompts and evaluated on two benchmark datasets per task, covering domains like news, reviews, and formal/informal texts. The results show that DeepSeek excels in classification stability and logical reasoning, while ChatGPT performs better in tasks requiring nuanced understanding and flexibility. These findings provide valuable insights for selecting the appropriate LLM based on task requirements.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Jun 2025.

Builds on

15 of 49 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  3. 2017Get To The Point: Summarization with Pointer-Generator Networkscited by 1,281
  4. 2023Generative AIcited by 119
  5. 2017HDLTex: Hierarchical Deep Learning for Text Classificationcited by 105
  6. 2017SemEval 2017 Task 10: ScienceIE - Extracting Keyphrases and Relations from Scientific Publicationscited by 101
  7. 2023A Comprehensive Survey on Applications of Transformers for Deep Learning Taskscited by 70
  8. 2023FlexKBQA: A Flexible LLM-Powered Framework for Few-Shot Knowledge Base Question Answeringcited by 51
  9. 2025Empowering Edge Intelligence: A Comprehensive Survey on On-Device AI Modelscited by 44
  10. 2024How Good is ChatGPT at Face Biometrics? A First Look into Recognition, Soft Biometrics, and Explainabilitycited by 33
  11. 2023ChatGPT: Applications, Opportunities, and Threatscited by 28
  12. 2024Can ChatGPT evaluate research quality?cited by 17
3 more
  1. 2023News Verifiers Showdown: A Comparative Performance Evaluation of ChatGPT 3.5, ChatGPT 4.0, Bing AI, and Bard in News Fact-Checkingcited by 16
  2. 2025DeepSeek vs. ChatGPT vs. Claude: A Comparative Study for Scientific Computing and Scientific Machine Learning Taskscited by 12
  3. 2023Kattis vs. ChatGPT: Assessment and Evaluation of Programming Tasks in the Age of Artificial Intelligencecited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2023A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets
  2. 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?
  3. 2025Comparative Analysis Based on DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini: Features, Techniques, Performance, Future Prospects
  4. 2025A Showdown of ChatGPT vs DeepSeek in Solving Programming Tasks
  5. 2025Challenges and Applications of Large Language Models: A Comparison of GPT and DeepSeek family of models
  6. 2025Explainable Sentiment Analysis with DeepSeek-R1: Performance, Efficiency, and Few-Shot Learning
  7. 2023Pushing the Limits of ChatGPT on NLP Tasks
  8. 2025Bridging Technology and Humanities: Evaluating the Impact of Large Language Models on Social Sciences Research with DeepSeek-R1