LLMs as Judges: Toward The Automatic Review of GSN-compliant Assurance Cases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02203v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2025 02:45:50 GMT
• Title: LLMs as Judges: Toward The Automatic Review of GSN-compliant Assurance Cases
• Abstract summary: Assurance cases allow verifying the correct implementation of certain non-functional requirements of mission-critical systems.<n>They aim to reduce risks of harm of all kinds including human mortality, environmental damage, and financial loss.<n> assurance cases often tend to be organized as extensive documents spanning hundreds of pages, making their creation, review, and maintenance error-prone, time-consuming, and tedious.<n>We propose a novel approach that leverages the textitLLM-as-a-judge paradigm to automate the review process.
• Score: 6.29065956656341
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Assurance cases allow verifying the correct implementation of certain non-functional requirements of mission-critical systems, including their safety, security, and reliability. They can be used in the specification of autonomous driving, avionics, air traffic control, and similar systems. They aim to reduce risks of harm of all kinds including human mortality, environmental damage, and financial loss. However, assurance cases often tend to be organized as extensive documents spanning hundreds of pages, making their creation, review, and maintenance error-prone, time-consuming, and tedious. Therefore, there is a growing need to leverage (semi-)automated techniques, such as those powered by generative AI and large language models (LLMs), to enhance efficiency, consistency, and accuracy across the entire assurance-case lifecycle. In this paper, we focus on assurance case review, a critical task that ensures the quality of assurance cases and therefore fosters their acceptance by regulatory authorities. We propose a novel approach that leverages the \textit{LLM-as-a-judge} paradigm to automate the review process. Specifically, we propose new predicate-based rules that formalize well-established assurance case review criteria, allowing us to craft LLM prompts tailored to the review task. Our experiments on several state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, DeepSeek-R1, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) show that, while most LLMs yield relatively good review capabilities, DeepSeek-R1 and GPT-4.1 demonstrate superior performance, with DeepSeek-R1 ultimately outperforming GPT-4.1. However, our experimental results also suggest that human reviewers are still needed to refine the reviews LLMs yield.

Related papers

• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• LLM Readiness Harness: Evaluation, Observability, and CI Gates for LLM/RAG Applications [51.56484100374058]
  We present a readiness harness for LLM and RAG applications that turns evaluation into a deployment decision workflow.<n>The system combines automated benchmarks, OpenTelemetry observability, and CI quality gates under a minimal API contract.<n>We evaluate the harness on ticket-routing and BEIR tasks with full Azure matrix coverage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-28T18:03:32Z)
• BadScientist: Can a Research Agent Write Convincing but Unsound Papers that Fool LLM Reviewers? [21.78901120638025]
  We investigate whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems.<n>Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments.<n>Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-20T18:37:11Z)
• ReviewGuard: Enhancing Deficient Peer Review Detection via LLM-Driven Data Augmentation [3.9199635838637072]
  ReviewGuard is an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews.<n>It produces a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews.<n> deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T15:45:26Z)
• Everything You Wanted to Know About LLM-based Vulnerability Detection But Were Afraid to Ask [30.819697001992154]
  Large Language Models are a promising tool for automated vulnerability detection.<n>Despite widespread adoption, a critical question remains: Are LLMs truly effective at detecting real-world vulnerabilities?<n>This paper challenges three widely held community beliefs: that LLMs are (i) unreliable, (ii) insensitive to code patches, and (iii) performance-plateaued across model scales.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T05:32:47Z)
• LLM-Safety Evaluations Lack Robustness [58.334290876531036]
  We argue that current safety alignment research efforts for large language models are hindered by many intertwined sources of noise.<n>We propose a set of guidelines for reducing noise and bias in evaluations of future attack and defense papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T12:55:07Z)
• Standard Benchmarks Fail - Auditing LLM Agents in Finance Must Prioritize Risk [31.43947127076459]
  Standard benchmarks fixate on how well large language model (LLM) agents perform in finance, yet say little about whether they are safe to deploy.<n>We argue that accuracy metrics and return-based scores provide an illusion of reliability, overlooking vulnerabilities such as hallucinated facts, stale data, and adversarial prompt manipulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T12:56:15Z)
• The Dual-use Dilemma in LLMs: Do Empowering Ethical Capacities Make a Degraded Utility? [54.18519360412294]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) must balance between rejecting harmful requests for safety and accommodating legitimate ones for utility.<n>This paper presents a Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) based alignment framework that achieves better overall performance.<n>We analyze experimental results obtained from testing DeepSeek-R1 on our benchmark and reveal the critical ethical concerns raised by this highly acclaimed model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-20T06:35:01Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• SafeBench: A Safety Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Large Language Models [75.67623347512368]
  We propose toolns, a comprehensive framework designed for conducting safety evaluations of MLLMs. Our framework consists of a comprehensive harmful query dataset and an automated evaluation protocol. Based on our framework, we conducted large-scale experiments on 15 widely-used open-source MLLMs and 6 commercial MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T17:14:40Z)
• SORRY-Bench: Systematically Evaluating Large Language Model Safety Refusal [64.9938658716425]
  SORRY-Bench is a proposed benchmark for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) ability to recognize and reject unsafe user requests.<n>First, existing methods often use coarse-grained taxonomy of unsafe topics, and are over-representing some fine-grained topics.<n>Second, linguistic characteristics and formatting of prompts are often overlooked, like different languages, dialects, and more -- which are only implicitly considered in many evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T17:56:07Z)
• An Insight into Security Code Review with LLMs: Capabilities, Obstacles, and Influential Factors [9.309745288471374]
  Security code review is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process.<n>Existing security analysis tools struggle with poor generalization, high false positive rates, and coarse detection granularity.<n>Large Language Models (LLMs) have been considered promising candidates for addressing those challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T17:13:44Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.