VARM-Bench: Benchmarking Verifiable Structured Reasoning in Chinese Abusive Speech Moderation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.15600v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2026 07:52:31 GMT
• Title: VARM-Bench: Benchmarking Verifiable Structured Reasoning in Chinese Abusive Speech Moderation
• Abstract summary: VARM-Bench is a benchmark for deterministically verifying the stated basis of a moderation decision.<n>Our protocol evaluates field correctness, target alignment, output validity, complete-record agreement, and hidden record errors.<n>Results show that strong label-level performance can conceal substantial errors in complete moderation records.
• Score: 12.885908330308046
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The widespread circulation of abusive online content has increased the need for reliable moderation of Chinese social-media text. Existing Chinese benchmarks support label classification, fine-grained toxicity categorization, and target-aware extraction, but do not provide a unified representation for deterministically verifying the stated basis of a moderation decision. We introduce VARM-Bench, a benchmark for field-anchored chain-of-thought rationales in Chinese abusive-speech moderation. Each instance contains a concise natural-language rationale with explicit anchors for six decisions: target, target type, target explicitness, author stance, harmfulness label, and fine-grained category. Our deterministic protocol evaluates field correctness, target alignment, output validity, complete-record agreement, and hidden record errors conditioned on correct final decisions, without relying on an LLM judge. Under a common structured-output protocol, we evaluate language models across multiple model families using zero-shot prompting, taxonomy guidance, and structured CoT supervision, and analyze lexical-cue sensitivity and field-level errors. Results show that strong label-level performance can conceal substantial errors in complete moderation records. VARM-Bench provides an auditable and reproducible benchmark for evaluating verifiable moderation rationales in Chinese abusive-speech moderation.

Related papers

• Beyond Solver Verdicts: Generative Reward Models for Autoformalization [6.845799966508813]
  We introduce Generative Verification (GenV), which distills an offline Z3-equivalence oracle into a reference-free, continuous reference-equivalence score.<n>GenV achieves 0.961 AUROC in reference-equivalence verification, generalizes zero-shot across unseen translators and divergent formal styles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T04:47:55Z)
• Inference-Time Steering for Cross-Lingual Factual Consistency in LLMs [51.56484100374058]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable multilingual fluency, but their internal knowledge representations remain disproportionately biased toward high-resource languages.<n>We investigate whether these biases can be mitigated at inference time, forcing an English-prompted model to answer as if it were queried in target languages.<n>Experiments on Gemma 3 12B Instruct reveal persona prompting to be the strongest overall intervention, balancing efficacy, safety, and out-of-domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-21T16:15:05Z)
• A Komi-Yazva--Russian Parallel Corpus and Evaluation Protocol for Zero- and Few-Shot LLM Translation [0.0]
  We present the first Komi-Yazva--Russian parallel corpus together with an explicit evaluation protocol.<n>The dataset contains 457 aligned sentence pairs from 74 narrative texts.<n>We use this setup to compare modern large language models on Komi-Yazva-to-Russian translation under severe parallel-data scarcity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T17:26:38Z)
• STRIDE: Learnable Stepwise Language Feedback for LLM Reasoning [80.78140312980484]
  We propose language-driven stepwise trajectory redirection, termed as STRIDE.<n>We co-train a generator and a generative verifier using only outcome-based rewards, eliminating external annotations.<n> Experiments on diverse reasoning benchmarks show that STRIDE significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T11:04:31Z)
• TAG: Target-Agnostic Guidance for Stable Object-Centric Inference in Vision-Language-Action Models [59.13964209628383]
  Vision-Language--Action (VLA) policies have shown strong progress in mapping language instructions and visual observations to robotic actions, yet their reliability degrades in cluttered scenes with distractors.<n>We propose TAG (Target-Agnostic Guidance), a simple inference-time guidance mechanism that explicitly reduces distractor- and appearance-induced bias in VLA policies.<n>We evaluate TAG on standard manipulation benchmarks, including LIBERO, LIBERO-Plus, and VLABench, where it consistently improves robustness under clutter and reduces near-miss and wrong-object executions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T17:56:32Z)
• xList-Hate: A Checklist-Based Framework for Interpretable and Generalizable Hate Speech Detection [2.647843453311735]
  We introduce xList-Hate, a diagnostic framework that decomposes hate speech detection into a checklist of explicit, concept-level questions.<n>The diagnostic signals are aggregated by a lightweight, fully interpretable decision tree, yielding transparent and auditable predictions.<n>Our results suggest that reframing hate speech detection as a diagnostic reasoning task, rather than a monolithic classification problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-05T16:51:56Z)
• VIRO: Robust and Efficient Neuro-Symbolic Reasoning with Verification for Referring Expression Comprehension [51.76841625486355]
  Referring Expression (REC) aims to localize the image region corresponding to a natural-language query.<n>Recent neuro-symbolic REC approaches leverage large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) to perform compositional reasoning.<n>We introduce VIRO, a neuro-symbolic framework that embeds lightweight operator-level verifiers within reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T07:21:19Z)
• BiasLab: A Multilingual, Dual-Framing Framework for Robust Measurement of Output-Level Bias in Large Language Models [3.643198597030366]
  This paper introduces BiasLab, an open-source, model-agnostic evaluation framework for quantifying output-level (extrinsic) bias.<n>The framework supports evaluation across diverse bias axes, including demographic, cultural, political, and geopolitical topics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T11:07:46Z)
• Do LLMs Know They Are Being Tested? Evaluation Awareness and Incentive-Sensitive Failures in GPT-OSS-20B [1.948261185683419]
  We investigate whether "evaluation scent" inflates measured performance without commensurate capability gains.<n>We run six paired A/B scenarios that hold task content and decoding fixed while varying framing.<n>We provide a reproducible A/B framework (prompt banks, validators, per-run scores, scripts) and practical guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T09:49:05Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detection [81.04406231100323]
  Biased associations have been a challenge in the development of classifiers for detecting toxic language. We investigate recently introduced debiasing methods for text classification datasets and models, as applied to toxic language detection. Our focus is on lexical (e.g., swear words, slurs, identity mentions) and dialectal markers (specifically African American English)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-29T22:03:17Z)

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.