Compliance-by-Construction Argument Graphs: Using Generative AI to Produce Evidence-Linked Formal Arguments for Certification-Grade Accountability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04103v1
• Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2026 12:55:16 GMT
• Title: Compliance-by-Construction Argument Graphs: Using Generative AI to Produce Evidence-Linked Formal Arguments for Certification-Grade Accountability
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: High-stakes decision systems increasingly require structured justification, traceability, and auditability to ensure accountability and regulatory compliance. Formal arguments commonly used in the certification of safety-critical systems provide a mechanism for structuring claims, reasoning, and evidence in a verifiable manner. At the same time, generative artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into decision-support workflows, assisting with drafting explanations, summarizing evidence, and generating recommendations. However, current deployments often rely on language models as loosely constrained assistants, which introduces risks such as hallucinated reasoning, unsupported claims, and weak traceability. This paper proposes a compliance-by-construction architecture that integrates Generative AI (GenAI) with structured formal argument representations. The approach treats each AI-assisted step as a claim that must be supported by verifiable evidence and validated against explicit reasoning constraints before it becomes part of an official decision record. The architecture combines four components: i) a typed Argument Graph representation inspired by assurance-case methods, ii) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to draft argument fragments grounded in authoritative evidence, iii) a reasoning and validation kernel enforcing completeness and admissibility constraints, and iv) a provenance ledger aligned with the W3C PROV standard to support auditability. We present a system design and an evaluation strategy based on enforceable invariants and worked examples. The analysis suggests that deterministic validation rules can prevent unsupported claims from entering the decision record while allowing GenAI to accelerate argument construction.

Related papers

• AI Slop and Hallucinations in Vulnerability Assessment: A Survey on Reasoning Failures and Trustworthy Mitigation [48.55515767840701]
  "AI slop" is artifacts, hallucinated vulnerabilities, plausible but incorrect patches, and semantically repackaged bug reports.<n>This paper surveys the empirical evidence, identifies a unifying mechanism, and traces a path toward trustworthy triage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T11:48:38Z)
• An Agentic RAG and Evaluation Framework for Assurance Case Generation: Industrial Use Case for the EU Cyber Resilience Act Compliance [1.3121550601837717]
  Complying with the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is a resource-intensive challenge for SMEs.<n>We introduce an automated framework for generating Assurance Cases (ACs) using an agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation.<n>By systematically mapping technical documentation requirements, the framework streamlines the generation of certification evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-19T23:54:30Z)
• 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)
• ReasoningLens: Hierarchical Visualization and Diagnostic Auditing for Large Reasoning Models [73.59878306788815]
  ReasoningLens is an open-source framework designed for the hierarchical visualization and diagnostic auditing of complex reasoning chains.<n> ReasoningLens addresses information necropsy by: (1) structuring traces into interactive hierarchies that separate high-level strategy from low-level execution; and (2) leveraging an agentic auditor for automated error detection and tool-augmented verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-22T14:28:35Z)
• 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)
• Provably Secure Agent Guardrail [89.79561918065122]
  Existing defense architectures rely on empirical semantic guardrails and probabilistic large model adjudicators.<n>This paper proposes a new security paradigm for agents based on the fundamental limitations of logical reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T02:12:41Z)
• Reasoning Provenance for Autonomous AI Agents: Structured Behavioral Analytics Beyond State Checkpoints and Execution Traces [0.0]
  Agent Execution Record (AER) is a structured reasoning primitive that captures intent, observation, and inference as first-class queryable fields on every step.<n>We show how AERs enable population-level behavioral analytics: reasoning pattern mining, confidence calibration, cross-agent comparison, counterfactual regression testing via mock replay.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T08:27:54Z)
• Formal Evidence Generation for Assurance Cases for Robotic Software Models [1.8145248907978841]
  Assurance Cases provide structured arguments supported by evidence.<n> generating and maintaining this evidence is labour-intensive, error-prone, and difficult to keep consistent as systems evolve.<n>We present a model-based approach to systematically generating AC evidence by embedding formal verification into the assurance workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T14:01:30Z)
• 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)
• Explainable Compliance Detection with Multi-Hop Natural Language Inference on Assurance Case Structure [1.5653612447564105]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T11:56:06Z)
• 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)
• Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance [7.65321625950609]
  This paper introduces a systems-engineering-driven framework, supported by software tooling, to operationalise a dynamic approach to argument-based assurance in two stages.<n>The framework's effectiveness is demonstrated through an illustrative case study in finance, with a focus on supporting fairness-related arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T21:05:33Z)
• Retrieval is Not Enough: Enhancing RAG Reasoning through Test-Time Critique and Optimization [58.390885294401066]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become a widely adopted paradigm for enabling knowledge-grounded large language models (LLMs)<n>RAG pipelines often fail to ensure that model reasoning remains consistent with the evidence retrieved, leading to factual inconsistencies or unsupported conclusions.<n>We propose AlignRAG, a novel iterative framework grounded in Critique-Driven Alignment (CDA)<n>We introduce AlignRAG-auto, an autonomous variant that dynamically terminates refinement, removing the need to pre-specify the number of critique iterations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T04:56:47Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)

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.