Do We Need Language-Specific Fact-Checking Models? The Case of Chinese

Caiqi Zhang, Zhijiang Guo, Andreas Vlachos
1/27/2024
cs.CL

No confident code implementation found for this paper. 1 possible match can be shown below.

Abstract

This paper investigates the potential benefits of language-specific fact-checking models, focusing on the case of Chinese. We first demonstrate the limitations of translation-based methods and multilingual large language models (e.g., GPT-4), highlighting the need for language-specific systems. We further propose a Chinese fact-checking system that can better retrieve evidence from a document by incorporating context information. To better analyze token-level biases in different systems, we construct an adversarial dataset based on the CHEF dataset, where each instance has large word overlap with the original one but holds the opposite veracity label. Experimental results on the CHEF dataset and our adversarial dataset show that our proposed method outperforms translation-based methods and multilingual LLMs and is more robust toward biases, while there is still large room for improvement, emphasizing the importance of language-specific fact-checking systems.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. 1 weaker match is hidden by default — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{zhang2024need,
  title  = {Do We Need Language-Specific Fact-Checking Models? The Case of Chinese},
  author = {Caiqi Zhang and Zhijiang Guo and Andreas Vlachos},
  year   = {2024},
  eprint = {2401.15498},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15498v3}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2401.15498.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2401.15498)

Discussion