Content moderation in online platforms faces persistent challenges due to the evolving complexity of user-generated content and the limitations of traditional rule-based and machine learning approaches. While recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled more sophisticated moderation via direct prompting or fine-tuning, these approaches often exhibit limited generalization, interpretability, and adaptability to unseen or ambiguous cases. In this work, we propose a novel moderation framework that leverages analogical examples to enhance rule induction and decision reliability. Our approach integrates end-to-end optimization of analogical retrieval, rule generation, and moderation classification, enabling the dynamic adaptation of moderation rules to diverse content scenarios. Through comprehensive experiments, we demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms both rule-injected fine-tuning baselines and multi-stage static RAG pipelines in terms of moderation accuracy and rule quality. Further evaluations, including human assessments and external model generalization tests, confirm that our framework produces rules with better clarity, interpretability, and applicability. These findings show that analogical example-driven methods can advance robust, explainable, and generalizable content moderation in real-world applications.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of the Chain of Thought (CoT) method and the ChAIRO framework for content moderation. CoT fails to identify the implicit bias and classifies it as ’Safe,’ while ChAIRO , leveraging analogical reasoning and explicit rule induction, correctly identifies it as ’Unsafe’ by recognizing the underlying discriminatory logic.
Figure 2: The workflow of the ChAIRO framework.
Category
Model/Method
Average
Politics
Pornography
Violence
Gambling
Bias
Harmless
General LLMs
GPT-4
72.3
58.6
88.7
79.8
92.7
64.3
56.8
DeepSeek R1
77.1
72.7
91.4
86.1
94.3
64.6
59.7
DeepSeek V3
80.3
79.0
90.3
89.8
95.0
70.5
62.5
Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct
74.3
59.1
91.1
84.4
95.4
67.9
54.2
QwQ-32B
69.1
75.4
69.6
72.0
84.9
60.7
54.6
LLaMA3-8B
67.5
58.5
55.9
81.0
90.6
65.2
44.2
Table 1: Moderation F1 Scores for General LLMs, Specific LLMs and ChAIRO
Setting
Overall F1
Politics
Pornography
Violence
Gambling
Bias
Harmless
w/o k-NN Retrieval
86.9 (-2.3)
85.4 (-3.9)
69.0 (-2.5)
96.6 (-1.2)
78.5 (-3.5)
93.6 (-2.5)
98.2 (-0.4)
w/o Second-stage SFT
88.0 (-1.2)
86.1 (-3.2)
69.3 (-2.2)
97.2 (-0.6)
81.2 (-0.8)
95.8 (-0.3)
98.4 (-0.2)
ChAIRO (Ours)
89.2
89.3
71.5
97.8
82.0
96.1
98.6
Table 2: Ablation Study on Model Components with Performance Change
Categories
Qwen3-8B
RAG
SFT
ChAIRO (Ours)
Hate
67.2
62.3
74.7
81.5
Sexual
65.2
72.3
71.4
81.6
Confessions
66.4
68.3
80.0
82.5
Harassment
25.8
27.6
26.7
40.7
Profanity
40.0
42.9
55.0
53.9
Average F1-Score
52.9
54.7
61.6
68.0
Table 3: F1-Score Comparison on Aegis Dataset
Model
F1
Human (%)
Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct
74.3
-
Simple Rule
75.1
15
RQ4
88.7
85
Table 4: Rule Quality Evaluation Results. The F1-score reflects the generalization ability of rules when applied to an external moderation model. The "Human (%)" denotes the preference rate derived from a double-blind comparison of 100 test cases by three annotators with content moderation experience, where rules are assessed for contextual relevance, completeness, and alignment with human judgment criteria.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Prompt for synthesizing the chain of analogical inductive reasoning.