arXiv AI By Sameer Malik, Ayush Singh, Amar Prakash Azad

PolicyGuard: From Organizational Policies to Neuro-SymbolicCompliance Review Engines

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 32004v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Policy-grounded document review requires determining whether a target document complies with organization-specific policies, guidelines, or playbooks.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 3

CTRAG: An In-Context Retrieval-based Framework for Automated Compliance Checking using LLMs

Trust is fundamental in modern regulatory ecosystems, and compliance checking plays a critical role in fostering that trust. Regulatory compliance verification is essential for businesses operating in highly controlled environments, as it ensures alignment with sector-specific guidelines across domains such as financial reporting, data privacy, and cybersecurity.

arXiv AI
Aug 26

Granite.Trust Policy Tools: Shareable, Actionable Policies for Generative AI Applications

Granite.Trust Policy Tools introduces a YAML-based Actionable Policy schema that specifies what content a generative AI model can or cannot produce, allowing exception-based governance. It also offers a synthetic data generation pipeline to create policy-aligned training data and a suite of tools for defining and enforcing these policies throughout the AI lifecycle. The tools and example policies are open source, enabling organizations to tailor safety policies to their specific risks and regulatory contexts.

By Nathalie Baracaldo, Nicolas Mello, Kush R. Varshney, Heiko Ludwig, Kate Soule, David Cox
arXiv AI
Sep 18

Code-as-Auditor: Executable Compliance Reasoning via Regulation-to-Code

Code-as-Auditor is an LLM-based framework that transforms regulatory information into formal checklists and executable decision trees, encoding rules as interpretable code. During inference, the model expands each checklist item into factual and counterfactual questions, guiding reasoning over case-specific evidence and potential violations. This pipeline moves from evidence identification to rule application and final decision-making, with a self‑verification loop that enhances logical consistency and traceability, leading to more accurate and evidence‑backed compliance evaluations in privacy and data protection scenarios.

By Jisoo Kim, Taeyoon Kwack, Jinwoo Jang, Woo Kyung Kim, Honguk Woo