Explainable Compliance Detection with Multi-Hop Natural Language Inference on Assurance Case Structure

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.08713v2
• Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2025 13:39:37 GMT
• Title: Explainable Compliance Detection with Multi-Hop Natural Language Inference on Assurance Case Structure
• Abstract summary: We propose a compliance detection approach based on Natural Language Inference (NLI)<n>We formulate the claim-argument-evidence structure of an assurance case as a multi-hop inference for explainable and traceable compliance detection.<n>Our results highlight the potential of NLI-based approaches in automating the regulatory compliance process.
• Score: 1.5653612447564105
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Ensuring complex systems meet regulations typically requires checking the validity of assurance cases through a claim-argument-evidence framework. Some challenges in this process include the complicated nature of legal and technical texts, the need for model explanations, and limited access to assurance case data. We propose a compliance detection approach based on Natural Language Inference (NLI): EXplainable CompLiance detection with Argumentative Inference of Multi-hop reasoning (EXCLAIM). We formulate the claim-argument-evidence structure of an assurance case as a multi-hop inference for explainable and traceable compliance detection. We address the limited number of assurance cases by generating them using large language models (LLMs). We introduce metrics that measure the coverage and structural consistency. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the generated assurance case from GDPR requirements in a multi-hop inference task as a case study. Our results highlight the potential of NLI-based approaches in automating the regulatory compliance process.

Related papers

• CLAIM: Leading Open-domain Active Clarification of Large Language Models with Uncertainty Measurement [50.91045324738942]
  CLAIM is an uncertainty-driven framework for active clarification learning in open-domain settings.<n>We propose an entropy-driven synthetic data generation pipeline that integrates uncertainty estimation with semantic clustering and reasoning-based judgments.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that CLAIM can learn stable and generalizable clarification strategies without relying on manually labeled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T04:27:45Z)
• When Reasoning Hurts Legal Drafting: The Verbalization Bottleneck in Patent Claim Generation [3.536605202672355]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely used to improve the reasoning capabilities of large language models.<n>This paper investigates whether CoT prompting benefits patent claim generation.<n>Our results show that reasoning-enhanced prompting can improve claim quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-11T21:19:39Z)
• Citation-Closure Retrieval and Per-Rule Attribution for Real-World Regulatory Compliance Question Answering [54.97384993676565]
  We formalize Regulatory Compliance QA with RegOps-Bench, a novel benchmark featuring an Operational Knowledge Graph derived from complex national R&D regulations.<n>RefWalk traverses cross-document citations, fuses multi-view candidates via max-based aggregation, and enforces per-rule attribution to explicitly map claims to sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T10:38:38Z)
• Compliance-by-Construction Argument Graphs: Using Generative AI to Produce Evidence-Linked Formal Arguments for Certification-Grade Accountability [0.0]
  This paper proposes a compliance-by-construction architecture that integrates Generative AI (GenAI) with structured formal argument representations.<n>The architecture treats each AI-assisted step as a claim that must be supported by verifiable evidence and validated against explicit reasoning constraints.<n>The analysis suggests that validation rules can prevent unsupported claims from entering the decision record while allowing GenAI to accelerate argument construction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T12:55:16Z)
• When Contextual Inference Fails: Cancelability in Interactive Instruction Following [51.2195840589474]
  We introduce Build What I Mean, an interactive benchmark for contextual meaning construction.<n>In BWIM, models must resolve ambiguity by either performing a contextual inference or requesting clarification at a small communication cost.<n>We observe suboptimal strategies, such as partner-blind over-clarification and question-averse guessing under uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-20T14:46:59Z)
• CaseFacts: A Benchmark for Legal Fact-Checking and Precedent Retrieval [5.305110876082343]
  CaseFacts is a benchmark for verifying legal claims against U.S. Supreme Court precedents.<n>The dataset consists of 6,294 claims categorized as Supported, Refuted, or Overruled.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T23:41:46Z)
• Doc-PP: Document Policy Preservation Benchmark for Large Vision-Language Models [13.70855540464427]
  We introduce Doc-PP, a novel benchmark constructed from real-world reports requiring reasoning across heterogeneous visual and textual elements under strict non-disclosure policies.<n>Our evaluation highlights a systemic Reasoning-Induced Safety Gap: models frequently leak sensitive information when answers must be inferred through complex synthesis or aggregated across modalities.<n>We propose DVA, a structural inference framework that decouples reasoning from policy verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T13:45:39Z)
• Structured Decomposition for LLM Reasoning: Cross-Domain Validation and Semantic Web Integration [0.0]
  Rule-based reasoning arises in domains where decisions must be auditable and justifiable.<n>Applying rules to such inputs demands both interpretive flexibility and formal guarantees.<n>This paper presents an integration pattern that combines these strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-04T17:19:20Z)
• KBQA-R1: Reinforcing Large Language Models for Knowledge Base Question Answering [64.62317305868264]
  We present textbfKBQA-R1, a framework that shifts the paradigm from text imitation to interaction optimization via Reinforcement Learning.<n>Treating KBQA as a multi-turn decision process, our model learns to navigate the knowledge base using a list of actions.<n>Experiments on WebQSP, GrailQA, and GraphQuestions demonstrate that KBQA-R1 achieves state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T17:45:42Z)
• Soppia: A Structured Prompting Framework for the Proportional Assessment of Non-Pecuniary Damages in Personal Injury Cases [0.0]
  This paper introduces Soppia, a structured prompting framework designed to assist legal professionals in navigating complex legal rules.<n>Using the twelve criteria for non-pecuniary damages established in the Brazilian CLT (Art. 223-G) as a case study, we demonstrate how Soppia operationalizes nuanced legal commands into a practical, replicable, and transparent methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T01:42:38Z)
• FaithCoT-Bench: Benchmarking Instance-Level Faithfulness of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [62.452350134196934]
  FaithCoT-Bench is a unified benchmark for instance-level CoT unfaithfulness detection.<n>Our framework formulates unfaithfulness detection as a discriminative decision problem.<n>FaithCoT-Bench sets a solid basis for future research toward more interpretable and trustworthy reasoning in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-05T05:16:54Z)
• Implicit Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [67.53966514728383]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong generalization across a wide range of tasks.<n>Recent studies have shifted attention from explicit chain-of-thought prompting toward implicit reasoning.<n>This survey introduces a taxonomy centered on execution paradigms, shifting the focus from representational forms to computational strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T14:16:02Z)
• What's in a Proof? Analyzing Expert Proof-Writing Processes in F* and Verus [2.8003002159083237]
  We conduct a user study involving the collection and analysis of fine-grained source code telemetry from eight experts working with two languages.<n>Results reveal interesting trends and patterns about how experts reason about proofs and key challenges encountered during the proof development process.<n>We translate these findings into concrete design guidance for AI proof assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T22:16:30Z)
• Federated In-Context Learning: Iterative Refinement for Improved Answer Quality [62.72381208029899]
  In-context learning (ICL) enables language models to generate responses without modifying their parameters by leveraging examples provided in the input.<n>We propose Federated In-Context Learning (Fed-ICL), a general framework that enhances ICL through an iterative, collaborative process.<n>Fed-ICL progressively refines responses by leveraging multi-round interactions between clients and a central server, improving answer quality without the need to transmit model parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-09T05:33:28Z)
• CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection [60.98964268961243]
  We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T17:02:52Z)
• VerifyThisBench: Generating Code, Specifications, and Proofs All at Once [5.783301542485619]
  We introduce a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on end-to-end program verification tasks.<n>Our evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models, such as o3-mini, achieve a pass rate of less than 4%, with many outputs failing to compile.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T19:00:52Z)
• Improving Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Language Models through Dialectic Reasoning Argumentations [65.11348389219887]
  We introduce Dialectic-RAG (DRAG), a modular approach that evaluates retrieved information by comparing, contrasting, and resolving conflicting perspectives.<n>We show the impact of our framework both as an in-context learning strategy and for constructing demonstrations to instruct smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T06:55:15Z)
• Elevating Legal LLM Responses: Harnessing Trainable Logical Structures and Semantic Knowledge with Legal Reasoning [19.477062052536887]
  We propose the Logical-Semantic Integration Model (LSIM), a supervised framework that bridges semantic and logical coherence.<n>LSIM comprises three components: reinforcement learning predicts a structured fact-rule chain for each question, a trainable Deep Structured Semantic Model (DSSM) retrieves the most relevant candidate questions and in-answer learning generates the final answer.<n>Our experiments on a real-world legal dataset QA-validated through both automated metrics and human evaluation-demonstrate that LSIM significantly enhances accuracy and reliability compared to existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-11T19:33:07Z)
• Few-shot Policy (de)composition in Conversational Question Answering [54.259440408606515]
  We propose a neuro-symbolic framework to detect policy compliance using large language models (LLMs) in a few-shot setting.<n>We show that our approach soundly reasons about policy compliance conversations by extracting sub-questions to be answered, assigning truth values from contextual information, and explicitly producing a set of logic statements from the given policies.<n>We apply this approach to the popular PCD and conversational machine reading benchmark, ShARC, and show competitive performance with no task-specific finetuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T08:40:15Z)
• Rethinking State Disentanglement in Causal Reinforcement Learning [78.12976579620165]
  Causality provides rigorous theoretical support for ensuring that the underlying states can be uniquely recovered through identifiability. We revisit this research line and find that incorporating RL-specific context can reduce unnecessary assumptions in previous identifiability analyses for latent states. We propose a novel approach for general partially observable Markov Decision Processes (POMDPs) by replacing the complicated structural constraints in previous methods with two simple constraints for transition and reward preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-24T06:49:13Z)
• From Chaos to Clarity: Claim Normalization to Empower Fact-Checking [57.024192702939736]
  Claim Normalization (aka ClaimNorm) aims to decompose complex and noisy social media posts into more straightforward and understandable forms. We propose CACN, a pioneering approach that leverages chain-of-thought and claim check-worthiness estimation. Our experiments demonstrate that CACN outperforms several baselines across various evaluation measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-22T16:07:06Z)
• Trusta: Reasoning about Assurance Cases with Formal Methods and Large Language Models [4.005483185111992]
  Trustworthiness Derivation Tree Analyzer (Trusta) is a desktop application designed to automatically construct and verify TDTs. It has a built-in Prolog interpreter in its backend, and is supported by the constraint solvers Z3 and MONA. Trusta can extract formal constraints from text in natural languages, facilitating an easier interpretation and validation process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-22T15:42:43Z)
• ADC: Adversarial attacks against object Detection that evade Context consistency checks [55.8459119462263]
  We show that even context consistency checks can be brittle to properly crafted adversarial examples. We propose an adaptive framework to generate examples that subvert such defenses. Our results suggest that how to robustly model context and check its consistency, is still an open problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-24T00:25:09Z)
• Case-Based Abductive Natural Language Inference [4.726777092009554]
  Case-Based Abductive Natural Language Inference (CB-ANLI) Case-Based Abductive Natural Language Inference (CB-ANLI)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T09:50:39Z)

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.