mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Classification is a RAG problem: A case study on hate speech detection

arXiv 2508.06204 ↗First posted 8 Aug 2025cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: Retrieval-augmented generation → Privacy and security of RAG

Abstract (arXiv)

Robust content moderation requires classification systems that can quickly adapt to evolving policies without costly retraining. We present classification using Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which shifts traditional classification tasks from determining the correct category in accordance with pre-trained parameters to evaluating content in relation to contextual knowledge retrieved at inference. In hate speech detection, this transforms the task from "is this hate speech?" to "does this violate the hate speech policy?" Our Contextual Policy Engine (CPE) - an agentic RAG system - demonstrates this approach and offers three key advantages: (1) robust classification accuracy comparable to leading commercial systems, (2) inherent explainability via retrieved policy segments, and (3) dynamic policy updates without model retraining. Through three experiments, we demonstrate strong baseline performance and show that the system can apply fine-grained policy control by correctly adjusting protection for specific identity groups without requiring retraining or compromising overall performance. These findings establish that RAG can transform classification into a more flexible, transparent, and adaptable process for content moderation and wider classification problems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Privacy and security of RAG, one of 15 directions in Retrieval-augmented generation. Builds on 15 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Aug 2025.

Builds on

15 of 28 references.

References · 15

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  2. 2023Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 2,212
  3. 2021Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversationcited by 692
  4. 2025Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Survey on Agentic RAGcited by 249
  5. 2021Latent Hatred: A Benchmark for Understanding Implicit Hate Speechcited by 217
  6. 2020HateCheck: Functional Tests for Hate Speech Detection Modelscited by 216
  7. 2023PaperQA: Retrieval-Augmented Generative Agent for Scientific Researchcited by 149
  8. 2021MultiVerS: Improving scientific claim verification with weak supervision and full-document contextcited by 143
  9. 2020Directions in Abusive Language Training Data: Garbage In, Garbage Outcited by 140
  10. 2024Language agents achieve superhuman synthesis of scientific knowledgecited by 137
  11. 2019Multilingual and Multi-Aspect Hate Speech Analysiscited by 133
  12. 2023When the Majority is Wrong: Modeling Annotator Disagreement for Subjective Taskscited by 90
3 more
  1. 2022Multilingual HateCheck: Functional Tests for Multilingual Hate Speech Detection Modelscited by 51
  2. 2023SemEval-2023 Task 10: Explainable Detection of Online Sexismcited by 48
  3. 2023HARE: Explainable Hate Speech Detection with Step-by-Step Reasoningcited by 31

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Improving Implicit Hate Speech Detection via a Community-Driven Multi-Agent Framework
  2. 2025RV-HATE: Reinforced Multi-Module Voting for Implicit Hate Speech Detection
  3. 2025HatePrototypes: Interpretable and Transferable Representations for Implicit and Explicit Hate Speech Detection
  4. 2026TANDEM: Temporal-Aware Neural Detection for Multimodal Hate Speech
  5. 2026Sledgehammer or Scalpel? A Fine-grained Adaptive Framework for Implicit Hate Speech
  6. 2025Dealing with Annotator Disagreement in Hate Speech Classification
  7. 2025ExPO-HM: Learning to Explain-then-Detect for Hateful Meme Detection
  8. 2023Probing LLMs for hate speech detection: strengths and vulnerabilities