Three Decades of Formal Methods in Business Process Compliance: A Systematic Literature Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10906v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 21:19:57 GMT
• Title: Three Decades of Formal Methods in Business Process Compliance: A Systematic Literature Review
• Abstract summary: Digitalization efforts often face a key challenge: business processes must adhere to legal regulations. This study focuses on rigorous frameworks using formal methods to verify or ensure compliance.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Digitalization efforts often face a key challenge: business processes must not only be efficient in achieving their goals but also adhere to legal regulations. Business process compliance refers to aligning processes with these regulations. Numerous frameworks have been developed to address this, with the earliest dating back to 1981. This study focuses on rigorous frameworks using formal methods to verify or ensure compliance. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) on process compliance frameworks based on formal models. Our goal was to assess the current state of research on process model compliance and identify gaps and opportunities for future work. Starting with 5018 candidate studies from 1981 to the establishment of GDPR, we selected 46 primary studies. These frameworks were categorized by their phases, the languages used for processes and compliance, and their reasoning techniques. We also examined their practical applicability, the case studies they were tested on, the types of users involved, and the skills needed for compliance. Also, we assessed the maturity of each framework. Our findings reveal strong consensus around verification techniques as central to process compliance, though there is less agreement on the earlier and later phases of compliance. Model checking is the dominant technique, but the compliance and process languages have evolved. Most frameworks are still conceptual with prototype implementations, often failing to account for compliance professionals like legal experts or law changes. In conclusion, there is a need for comprehensive empirical studies to better understand the anatomy and maturity of regulatory compliance frameworks, and for robust evaluation methods to benchmark these frameworks. This review offers valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in process compliance.

Related papers

• FormalTCS: Benchmarking End-to-End Frontier Formal Theoretical Computer Science Research of Large Language Models [53.68149869349268]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown growing potential for automated theoretical computer science (TCS) research.<n>We introduce ourbenchmark, an expert-validated benchmark for evaluating LLMs on frontier, end-to-end TCS research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-20T15:13:41Z)
• When Rules Learn: A Self-Evolving Agent for Legal Case Retrieval [20.750798833808556]
  We propose a self-evolving framework for rule-driven query rewriting that enhances BM25 without any parameter training.<n>We evaluate our method on the Chinese legal case retrieval benchmark LeCaRD-v2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T19:09:31Z)
• Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring [0.0]
  Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict.<n>We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act.<n>We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from behavioural observability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-23T21:21:33Z)
• LegalOne: A Family of Foundation Models for Reliable Legal Reasoning [54.57434222018289]
  We present LegalOne, a family of foundational models specifically tailored for the Chinese legal domain.<n>LegalOne is developed through a comprehensive three-phase pipeline designed to master legal reasoning.<n>We publicly release the LegalOne weights and the LegalKit evaluation framework to advance the field of Legal AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-31T10:18:32Z)
• PLawBench: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice [67.71760070255425]
  We introduce PLawBench, a practical benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in legal practice scenarios.<n>PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics.<n>Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:36:10Z)
• Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks [103.53142193393931]
  evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment.<n>We conduct a systematic review of 445 benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning.<n>We find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T17:39:40Z)
• On Verifiable Legal Reasoning: A Multi-Agent Framework with Formalized Knowledge Representations [0.0]
  This paper introduces a modular multi-agent framework that decomposes legal reasoning into distinct knowledge acquisition and application stages.<n>In the first stage, specialized agents extract legal concepts and formalize rules to create verifiable intermediate representations of statutes.<n>The second stage applies this knowledge to specific cases through three steps: analyzing queries to map case facts onto the schema, performing symbolic inference to derive logically entailed conclusions, and generating final answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-31T06:03:00Z)
• LLM-based Agentic Reasoning Frameworks: A Survey from Methods to Scenarios [63.08653028889316]
  We propose a systematic taxonomy that decomposes agentic reasoning frameworks and analyze how these frameworks dominate framework-level reasoning.<n>Specifically, we propose an unified formal language to further classify agentic reasoning systems into single-agent methods, tool-based methods, and multi-agent methods.<n>We provide a comprehensive review of their key application scenarios in scientific discovery, healthcare, software engineering, social simulation, and economics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T06:01:16Z)
• Tool for Supporting Debugging and Understanding of Normative Requirements Using LLMs [3.7885668021375465]
  Normative requirements specify social, legal, ethical, empathetic, and cultural (SLEEC) norms that must be observed by a system.<n>These requirements are typically defined by stakeholders in the non-technical system with diverse expertise.<n>SLEEC-LLM improves the efficiency and explainability of normative requirements elicitation and consistency analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T21:57:28Z)
• A Procedural Framework for Assessing the Desirability of Process Deviations [0.0]
  This paper presents a procedural framework to guide process analysts in systematically assessing deviation desirability.<n>It provides a step-by-step approach for identifying which input factors to consider in what order to categorize deviations into mutually exclusive desirability categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T07:24:57Z)
• CHANCERY: Evaluating Corporate Governance Reasoning Capabilities in Language Models [30.288227578616905]
  We introduce a corporate governance reasoning benchmark (CHANCERY) to test a model's ability to reason about whether executive/board/shareholder's proposed actions are consistent with corporate governance charters.<n>The benchmark consists of a corporate charter (a set of governing covenants) and a proposal for executive action.<n> Evaluations on state-of-the-art (SOTA) reasoning models confirm the difficulty of the benchmark, with models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet and GPT-4o achieving 64.5% and 75.2% accuracy respectively.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T05:13:32Z)
• A Sober Look at Progress in Language Model Reasoning: Pitfalls and Paths to Reproducibility [47.56466996118911]
  Reasoning has emerged as the next major frontier for language models (LMs)<n>We conduct a comprehensive empirical study and find that current mathematical reasoning benchmarks are highly sensitive to subtle implementation choices.<n>We propose a standardized evaluation framework with clearly defined best practices and reporting standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T17:58:17Z)
• Reviewing Uses of Regulatory Compliance Monitoring [0.0]
  This work presents a systematic literature review on uses of regulatory compliance monitoring of business processes. We highlight commonalities and differences between the approaches and find that various steps are performed manually.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:54:36Z)
• The Use of Readability Metrics in Legal Text: A Systematic Literature Review [3.439579933384111]
  Linguistic complexity is an important contributor to difficulties experienced by readers. Document readability metrics have been developed to measure document readability. Not all legal domains are well represented in terms of readability metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T15:04:17Z)
• Ethical and Scalable Automation: A Governance and Compliance Framework for Business Applications [0.0]
  This paper introduces a framework ensuring that AI must be ethical, controllable, viable, and desirable. Different case studies validate this framework by integrating AI in both academic and practical environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T12:39:28Z)
• LawLLM: Law Large Language Model for the US Legal System [43.13850456765944]
  We introduce the Law Large Language Model (LawLLM), a multi-task model specifically designed for the US legal domain. LawLLM excels at Similar Case Retrieval (SCR), Precedent Case Recommendation (PCR), and Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) We propose customized data preprocessing techniques for each task that transform raw legal data into a trainable format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-27T21:51:30Z)
• Lean-STaR: Learning to Interleave Thinking and Proving [53.923617816215774]
  We present Lean-STaR, a framework for training language models to produce informal thoughts prior to each step of a proof. Lean-STaR achieves state-of-the-art results on the miniF2F-test benchmark within the Lean theorem proving environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-14T01:43:07Z)
• On Developing an Artifact-based Approach to Regulatory Requirements Engineering [18.256422026527986]
  Regulatory acts are a challenging source when eliciting, interpreting, and analyzing requirements. No existing approach considers explicating and managing legal domain knowledge and engineering-legal coordination. We introduce the first version of our Artifact Model for Regulatory Requirements Engineering (AM4RRE) and its conceptual foundation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T09:51:56Z)
• Towards an Enforceable GDPR Specification [49.1574468325115]
  Privacy by Design (PbD) is prescribed by modern privacy regulations such as the EU's. One emerging technique to realize PbD is enforcement (RE) We present a set of requirements and an iterative methodology for creating formal specifications of legal provisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T09:38:51Z)
• Identification of Regulatory Requirements Relevant to Business Processes: A Comparative Study on Generative AI, Embedding-based Ranking, Crowd and Expert-driven Methods [10.899912290518648]
  This work examines how legal and domain experts can be assisted in the assessment of relevant requirements. We compare an embedding-based NLP ranking method, a generative AI method using GPT-4, and a crowdsourced method with the purely manual method of creating labels by experts. A gold standard is created for both BPMN2.0 processes and matched to real-world requirements from multiple regulatory documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T12:08:31Z)
• Validation-Driven Development [54.50263643323]
  This paper introduces a validation-driven development (VDD) process that prioritizes validating requirements in formal development. The effectiveness of the VDD process is demonstrated through a case study in the aviation industry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-11T09:15:26Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Prescriptive Process Monitoring: Quo Vadis? [64.39761523935613]
  The paper studies existing methods in this field via a Systematic Literature Review ( SLR) The SLR provides insights into challenges and areas for future research that could enhance the usefulness and applicability of prescriptive process monitoring methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-03T08:06:24Z)
• The MultiBERTs: BERT Reproductions for Robustness Analysis [86.29162676103385]
  Re-running pretraining can lead to substantially different conclusions about performance. We introduce MultiBERTs: a set of 25 BERT-base checkpoints. The aim is to enable researchers to draw robust and statistically justified conclusions about pretraining procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-30T15:56:44Z)

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.