CompliBench: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Compliance Violation Detection in Dialogue Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12312v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2026 05:42:41 GMT
• Title: CompliBench: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Compliance Violation Detection in Dialogue Systems
• Abstract summary: CompliBench is a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of LLM judges to detect and localize guideline violations in multi-turn dialogues.<n>We develop a scalable, automated data generation pipeline that simulates user-agent interactions.<n>Our controllable flaw injection process automatically yields precise ground-truth labels for the violated guideline and the exact conversation turn.
• Score: 19.083967725767387
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as task-oriented agents in enterprise environments, ensuring their strict adherence to complex, domain-specific operational guidelines is critical. While utilizing an LLM-as-a-Judge is a promising solution for scalable evaluation, the reliability of these judges in detecting specific policy violations remains largely unexplored. This gap is primarily due to the lack of a systematic data generation method, which has been hindered by the extensive cost of fine-grained human annotation and the difficulty of synthesizing realistic agent violations. In this paper, we introduce CompliBench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of LLM judges to detect and localize guideline violations in multi-turn dialogues. To overcome data scarcity, we develop a scalable, automated data generation pipeline that simulates user-agent interactions. Our controllable flaw injection process automatically yields precise ground-truth labels for the violated guideline and the exact conversation turn, while an adversarial search method ensures these introduced perturbations are highly challenging. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals that current state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs struggle significantly with this task. In addition, we demonstrate that a small-scale judge model fine-tuned on our synthesized data outperforms leading LLMs and generalizes well to unseen business domains, highlighting our pipeline as an effective foundation for training robust generative reward models.

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)
• HIDBench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Host-Based Intrusion Detection [11.060899899257755]
  We present a new benchmark to assess large language models' capabilities in supporting host-based intrusion detection systems.<n>This task requires fine-grained reasoning over large-scale, noisy, and highly imbalanced system logs.<n>Our results highlight that while LLMs show strong potential for HIDS, their effectiveness is highly sensitive to data complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-20T22:07:12Z)
• 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)
• FAMA: Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic Framework for Open-Source LLMs in Interactive Tool Use Environments [60.3427704389541]
  Large Language Models are being increasingly deployed as the decision-making core of autonomous agents.<n>Yet, in conversational benchmarks, these agents frequently fail due to the cascading effects of incorrect decision-making.<n>We present the Failure-Aware Meta-Agentic framework to tackle these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T02:21:53Z)
• RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents [4.07447364754644]
  This paper introduces RPA-Check, a multi-stage automated evaluation framework designed to objectively assess the performance of LLM-based RPAs.<n>We validate this framework by applying it to LLM Court, a serious game for forensic training involving several quantized local models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T16:08:03Z)
• Steering LLMs via Scalable Interactive Oversight [74.12746881843044]
  Large Language Models increasingly automate complex, long-horizon tasks such as emphvibe coding, a supervision gap has emerged.<n>It presents a critical challenge in scalable oversight: enabling humans to responsibly steer AI systems on tasks that surpass their own ability to specify or verify.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T04:52:00Z)
• The Shadow Self: Intrinsic Value Misalignment in Large Language Model Agents [37.75212140218036]
  We formalize the Loss-of-Control risk and identify the previously underexamined Intrinsic Value Misalignment (Intrinsic VM)<n>We then introduce IMPRESS, a scenario-driven framework for systematically assessing this risk.<n>We evaluate Intrinsic VM on 21 state-of-the-art LLM agents and find that it is a common and broadly observed safety risk across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:09:50Z)
• Gaming the Judge: Unfaithful Chain-of-Thought Can Undermine Agent Evaluation [76.5533899503582]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to evaluate agent performance.<n>We show this paradigm implicitly assumes that the agent's chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning faithfully reflects both its internal reasoning and the underlying environment state.<n>We demonstrate that manipulated reasoning alone can inflate false positive rates of state-of-the-art VLM judges by up to 90% across 800 trajectories spanning diverse web tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-21T06:07:43Z)
• 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)
• Efficient Out-of-Scope Detection in Dialogue Systems via Uncertainty-Driven LLM Routing [6.579756339673344]
  Out-of-scope (OOS) intent detection is a critical challenge in task-oriented dialogue systems (TODS)<n>We propose a novel but simple modular framework that combines uncertainty modeling with fine-tuned large language models (LLMs) for efficient and accurate OOS detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-02T09:51:41Z)
• Evaluating LLM-Contaminated Crowdsourcing Data Without Ground Truth [18.069595635842557]
  Large language models (LLMs) by crowdsourcing workers pose a challenge to datasets intended to reflect human input.<n>We propose a training-free scoring mechanism with theoretical guarantees under a crowdsourcing model that accounts for LLM collusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T04:38:39Z)
• Can LLMs Hack Enterprise Networks? Autonomous Assumed Breach Penetration-Testing Active Directory Networks [1.3124479769761592]
  We introduce a novel prototype designed to employ Large Language Model (LLM)-driven autonomous systems.<n>Our system represents the first demonstration of a fully autonomous, LLM-driven framework capable of compromising accounts.<n>We find that the associated costs are competitive with, and often significantly lower than, those incurred by professional human pen-testers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T17:12:43Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)

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.