CANDY: Benchmarking LLMs' Limitations and Assistive Potential in Chinese Misinformation Fact-Checking

Ruiling Guo, Xinwei Yang, Chen Huang, Tong Zhang, Yong Hu
9/4/2025
cs.CLcs.AI

Official code: SCUNLP/CANDY (5 stars, last commit 2025-11-02).

Abstract

The effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) to fact-check misinformation remains uncertain, despite their growing use. To this end, we present CANDY, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in fact-checking Chinese misinformation. Specifically, we curate a carefully annotated dataset of ~20k instances. Our analysis shows that current LLMs exhibit limitations in generating accurate fact-checking conclusions, even when enhanced with chain-of-thought reasoning and few-shot prompting. To understand these limitations, we develop a taxonomy to categorize flawed LLM-generated explanations for their conclusions and identify factual fabrication as the most common failure mode. Although LLMs alone are unreliable for fact-checking, our findings indicate their considerable potential to augment human performance when deployed as assistive tools in scenarios. Our dataset and code can be accessed at https://github.com/SCUNLP/CANDY

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations(1)

SCUNLP/CANDYOfficial100%

We present CANDY, a benchmark designed to systematically evaluate the capabilities and limitations of LLMs in fact-checking Chinese misinformation

50Aug 26, 202511 months ago

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{guo2025candy,
  title  = {CANDY: Benchmarking LLMs' Limitations and Assistive Potential in Chinese Misinformation Fact-Checking},
  author = {Ruiling Guo and Xinwei Yang and Chen Huang and Tong Zhang and Yong Hu},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2509.03957},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.03957v1}
}

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/2509.03957.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2509.03957)

Discussion