Is DeepSeek a New Voice Among LLMs in Public Opinion Simulation?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21587v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 19:19:14 GMT
• Title: Is DeepSeek a New Voice Among LLMs in Public Opinion Simulation?
• Authors: Weihong Qi, Fan Huang, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak,
• Abstract summary: This study evaluates the ability of an open-source large language model (LLM) to simulate public opinions in comparison to models developed by tech companies.<n>Our findings indicate that DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating U.S. opinions on the abortion issue.<n>For Chinese samples, DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating opinions on foreign aid and individualism but shows limitations in modeling views on capitalism.
• Score: 6.489711597270606
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study evaluates the ability of DeepSeek, an open-source large language model (LLM), to simulate public opinions in comparison to LLMs developed by major tech companies. By comparing DeepSeek-R1 and DeepSeek-V3 with Qwen2.5, GPT-4o, and Llama-3.3 and utilizing survey data from the American National Election Studies (ANES) and the Zuobiao dataset of China, we assess these models' capacity to predict public opinions on social issues in both China and the United States, highlighting their comparative capabilities between countries. Our findings indicate that DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating U.S. opinions on the abortion issue compared to other topics such as climate change, gun control, immigration, and services for same-sex couples, primarily because it more accurately simulates responses when provided with Democratic or liberal personas. For Chinese samples, DeepSeek-V3 performs best in simulating opinions on foreign aid and individualism but shows limitations in modeling views on capitalism, particularly failing to capture the stances of low-income and non-college-educated individuals. It does not exhibit significant differences from other models in simulating opinions on traditionalism and the free market. Further analysis reveals that all LLMs exhibit the tendency to overgeneralize a single perspective within demographic groups, often defaulting to consistent responses within groups. These findings highlight the need to mitigate cultural and demographic biases in LLM-driven public opinion modeling, calling for approaches such as more inclusive training methodologies.

Related papers

• How Large Language Models Systematically Misrepresent American Climate Opinions [0.0]
  Group-level estimates can mislead outreach, consultation, and policy design.<n>No study has compared these outputs against real human responses across intersecting identities.<n>This is particularly urgent for climate change, where opinion is contested and diverse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T22:29:10Z)
• Sometimes the Model doth Preach: Quantifying Religious Bias in Open LLMs through Demographic Analysis in Asian Nations [8.769839351949997]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are capable of generating opinions and propagating bias unknowingly.<n>Our work proposes a novel method that quantitatively analyzes the opinions generated by LLMs.<n>We evaluate modern, open LLMs such as Llama and Mistral on surveys conducted in various global south countries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T16:32:03Z)
• Algorithmic Fidelity of Large Language Models in Generating Synthetic German Public Opinions: A Case Study [23.458234676060716]
  This study investigates the algorithmic fidelity of large language models (LLMs)<n>We prompt different LLMs to generate synthetic public opinions reflective of German subpopulations by incorporating demographic features into the persona prompts.<n>Our results show that Llama performs better than other LLMs at representing subpopulations, particularly when there is lower opinion diversity within those groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T18:46:32Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Representation Bias in Political Sample Simulations with Large Language Models [54.48283690603358]
  This study seeks to identify and quantify biases in simulating political samples with Large Language Models. Using the GPT-3.5-Turbo model, we leverage data from the American National Election Studies, German Longitudinal Election Study, Zuobiao dataset, and China Family Panel Studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T05:52:26Z)
• Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Language Models to Estimate German Public Opinion [45.84205238554709]
  We generate a synthetic sample of personas matching the individual characteristics of the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents. We ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent's vote choice and compare these predictions to the survey-based estimates. We find that GPT-3.5 does not predict citizens' vote choice accurately, exhibiting a bias towards the Green and Left parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T14:52:18Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models [26.999751306332165]
  Large language models (LLMs) may not equitably represent diverse global perspectives on societal issues. We develop a quantitative framework to evaluate whose opinions model-generated responses are more similar to. We release our dataset for others to use and build on.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T17:31:53Z)
• Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect? [88.35520051971538]
  We investigate the opinions reflected by language models (LMs) by leveraging high-quality public opinion polls and their associated human responses. We find substantial misalignment between the views reflected by current LMs and those of US demographic groups. Our analysis confirms prior observations about the left-leaning tendencies of some human feedback-tuned LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T17:17:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.