Judging by the Rules: Compliance-Aligned Framework for Modern Slavery Statement Monitoring

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.07803v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2025 01:19:27 GMT
• Title: Judging by the Rules: Compliance-Aligned Framework for Modern Slavery Statement Monitoring
• Abstract summary: Modern slavery affects millions of people worldwide, and regulatory frameworks such as Modern Slavery Acts now require companies to publish detailed disclosures.<n>These statements are often vague and inconsistent, making manual review time-consuming and difficult to scale.<n>We propose a novel framework that harnesses AI for rule-level compliance verification while preserving expert oversight.
• Score: 24.13989765643719
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Modern slavery affects millions of people worldwide, and regulatory frameworks such as Modern Slavery Acts now require companies to publish detailed disclosures. However, these statements are often vague and inconsistent, making manual review time-consuming and difficult to scale. While NLP offers a promising path forward, high-stakes compliance tasks require more than accurate classification: they demand transparent, rule-aligned outputs that legal experts can verify. Existing applications of large language models (LLMs) often reduce complex regulatory assessments to binary decisions, lacking the necessary structure for robust legal scrutiny. We argue that compliance verification is fundamentally a rule-matching problem: it requires evaluating whether textual statements adhere to well-defined regulatory rules. To this end, we propose a novel framework that harnesses AI for rule-level compliance verification while preserving expert oversight. At its core is the Compliance Alignment Judge (CA-Judge), which evaluates model-generated justifications based on their fidelity to statutory requirements. Using this feedback, we train the Compliance Alignment LLM (CALLM), a model that produces rule-consistent, human-verifiable outputs. CALLM improves predictive performance and generates outputs that are both transparent and legally grounded, offering a more verifiable and actionable solution for real-world compliance analysis.

Related papers

• CTRAG: An In-Context Retrieval-based Framework for Automated Compliance Checking using LLMs [3.4983716329137344]
  We present CTRAG, a novel Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline designed for automated compliance checking.<n>CTRAG achieves highly accurate, document-informed compliance verification, even in cases of indirect compliance through third-party services.<n> Empirical evaluations demonstrate significant improvements, with CTRAG achieving an F1-score of 78% and a recall of 85% in the final deployed configuration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-03T16:40:16Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• IMPACT-CYCLE: A Contract-Based Multi-Agent System for Claim-Level Supervisory Correction of Long-Video Semantic Memory [73.22944697933603]
  Existing pipelines produce opaque, end-to-end outputs that expose no intermediate state for inspection.<n>We present IMPACT-Cycle, a supervisory multi-agent system that reformulates long-video understanding as a multimodal iterative claim-level maintenance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-22T03:03:33Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• 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)
• Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI [49.995126139461085]
  We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth.<n>We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T17:17:32Z)
• Towards Comprehensive Stage-wise Benchmarking of Large Language Models in Fact-Checking [64.97768177044355]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world fact-checking systems.<n>We present FactArena, a fully automated arena-style evaluation framework.<n>Our analyses reveal significant discrepancies between static claim-verification accuracy and end-to-end fact-checking competence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T02:51:56Z)
• "Show Me You Comply... Without Showing Me Anything": Zero-Knowledge Software Auditing for AI-Enabled Systems [2.2981698355892686]
  This paper introduces ZKMLOps, a novel MLOps verification framework.<n>It operationalizes Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs)-cryptographic protocols allowing a prover to convince a verifier that a statement is true.<n>We evaluate the framework's practicality through a study of regulatory compliance in financial risk auditing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T15:03:32Z)
• 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)
• AUTOLAW: Enhancing Legal Compliance in Large Language Models via Case Law Generation and Jury-Inspired Deliberation [5.732271982985626]
  AutoLaw is a novel violation detection framework for domain-specific large language models (LLMs)<n>It combines adversarial data generation with a jury-inspired deliberation process to enhance legal compliance of LLMs.<n>Our results highlight the framework's ability to adaptively probe legal misalignments and deliver reliable, context-aware judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T07:09:13Z)
• Representing Normative Regulations in OWL DL for Automated Compliance Checking Supported by Text Annotation [0.138120109831448]
  We propose an annotation schema and an algorithm that transforms text annotations into machine-interpretable OWL DL code.<n>The proposed approach is validated through a proof-of-concept implementation applied to examples from the building construction domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T12:05:21Z)
• Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Models [64.60765108418062]
  We introduce Deliberative Alignment, a new paradigm that teaches the model safety specifications and trains it to explicitly recall and accurately reason over the specifications before answering.<n>We used this approach to align OpenAI's o-series models, and achieved highly precise adherence to OpenAI's safety policies, without requiring human-written chain-of-thoughts or answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T21:00:11Z)
• RIRAG: Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation [51.998738311700095]
  We introduce a task of generating question-passages pairs, where questions are automatically created and paired with relevant regulatory passages.<n>We create the ObliQA dataset, containing 27,869 questions derived from the collection of Abu Dhabi Global Markets (ADGM) financial regulation documents.<n>We design a baseline Regulatory Information Retrieval and Answer Generation (RIRAG) system and evaluate it with RePASs, a novel evaluation metric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-09T14:44:19Z)
• 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)

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.