arXiv AI By Nima Kamali Lassem, Fuqi Song, Seyid Amjad Ali

The Violation Situation Pattern: A Knowledge-Graph Pattern for Compliance Violations

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2606. 03326v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Compliance pipelines detect violations as transient query results and do not keep the violation itself as a persistent graph object with review state, affected entities, or audit history.

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.

arXiv AI
2d ago

Actions with Receipts: Jointly Binding Claims, Evidence, and Execution for Replayable Tool-Agent Auditing

The paper introduces a claim‑anchored execution contract that binds a tool‑using agent’s emitted claim to its exact source span, the ordered execution prefix that produced it, and the source version and access state observed. Each receipt contains deterministic anchors, source identifiers, offsets, hashes, quotes, and a domain‑separated execution commitment, allowing a verifier to reconstruct these bindings before semantic or task labels are joined. The contract defines seven independently testable properties and demonstrates high detection rates against cross‑object attacks, with strong performance on conflict‑aware support guard evaluations.

By Miaobo Hu, Shuhao Hu, Xiaobo Guo, Xin Wang, Bokun Wang, Yina Sa, Daren Zha, Jun Xiao
arXiv AI
Aug 18

Quipu: A Governed Bitemporal Knowledge Graph Store

arXiv:2608. 16813v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agents now write knowledge graphs, but knowledge-graph stores still carry defaults set when humans curated them: accept writes now and clean later, keep one time axis or none, treat every writer's facts as equally trustworthy, and leave governance to dashboards and middleware.

By Steve Brown
arXiv AI
Sep 11

ContractEval: Query-Conditioned Execution Matching for Procedural Instruction Conformance

ContractEval is a diagnostic framework that makes active obligations in procedural instructions explicit by representing them as query‑conditioned obligations. It matches these obligations against response or trace evidence, identifying omissions, wrong branches, ordering errors, extra actions, invariant breaches, and output‑contract violations as distinct conformance failures. In tests on audited procedural contracts, ContractEval detects and localizes all injected structural failures that output‑only and trace‑aware LLM judges miss, though it is not a compliance guarantee and remains calibration‑sensitive.

By Praphul Singh, Shanu Kumar, Akshat Agarwal, Ganesh Kumar