SoftHateBench: Evaluating Moderation Models Against Reasoning-Driven, Policy-Compliant Hostility

Abstract

Online hate on social media ranges from overt slurs and threats (\emph{hard hate speech}) to \emph{soft hate speech}: discourse that appears reasonable on the surface but uses framing and value-based arguments to steer audiences toward blaming or excluding a target group. We hypothesize that current moderation systems, largely optimized for surface toxicity cues, are not robust to this reasoning-driven hostility, yet existing benchmarks do not measure this gap systematically. We introduce \textbf{\textsc{SoftHateBench}}, a generative benchmark that produces soft-hate variants while preserving the underlying hostile standpoint. To generate soft hate, we integrate the \emph{Argumentum Model of Topics} (AMT) and \emph{Relevance Theory} (RT) in a unified framework: AMT provides the backbone argument structure for rewriting an explicit hateful standpoint into a seemingly neutral discussion while preserving the stance, and RT guides generation to keep the AMT chain logically coherent. The benchmark spans \textbf{7} sociocultural domains and \textbf{28} target groups, comprising \textbf{4,745} soft-hate instances. Evaluations across encoder-based detectors, general-purpose LLMs, and safety models show a consistent drop from hard to soft tiers: systems that detect explicit hostility often fail when the same stance is conveyed through subtle, reasoning-based language. \textcolor{red}{\textbf{Disclaimer.} Contains offensive examples used solely for research.}