Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Comparative Analysis Based on DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini: Features, Techniques, Performance, Future Prospects

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2503.04783 v1 pith:BNYBSFE4 submitted 2025-02-25 cs.CL cs.CR

classification cs.CLcs.CR
keywords chatgptdeepseekgeminigoogleperformanceresearchtechniquesanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Nowadays, DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Google Gemini are the most trending and exciting Large Language Model (LLM) technologies for reasoning, multimodal capabilities, and general linguistic performance worldwide. DeepSeek employs a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) approach, activating only the parameters most relevant to the task at hand, which makes it especially effective for domain-specific work. On the other hand, ChatGPT relies on a dense transformer model enhanced through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and then Google Gemini actually uses a multimodal transformer architecture that integrates text, code, and images into a single framework. However, by using those technologies, people can be able to mine their desired text, code, images, etc, in a cost-effective and domain-specific inference. People may choose those techniques based on the best performance. In this regard, we offer a comparative study based on the DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Gemini techniques in this research. Initially, we focus on their methods and materials, appropriately including the data selection criteria. Then, we present state-of-the-art features of DeepSeek, ChatGPT, and Gemini based on their applications. Most importantly, we show the technological comparison among them and also cover the dataset analysis for various applications. Finally, we address extensive research areas and future potential guidance regarding LLM-based AI research for the community.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Cat and Mouse -- Can Fake Text Generation Outpace Detector Systems?

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Newer Gemini models were more effective at evading simple fake-text detectors, but newer GPT models were not.

  2. Evaluation of LLMs for mathematical problem solving

    cs.AI 2025-05 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A three-model, three-dataset LLM math evaluation using a multi-dimensional reasoning rubric, undermined by contradictory accuracy tables.

  3. A Survey of the State-of-the-Art in Conversational Question Answering Systems

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review that categorizes ConvQA components, techniques, models, and datasets, with no new experimental result.

Pith tools