Rethinking Legal Compliance Automation: Opportunities with Large Language Models
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As software-intensive systems face growing pressure to comply with laws and regulations, providing automated support for compliance analysis has become paramount. Despite advances in the Requirements Engineering (RE) community on legal compliance analysis, important obstacles remain in developing accurate and generalizable compliance automation solutions. This paper highlights some observed limitations of current approaches and examines how adopting new automation strategies that leverage Large Language Models (LLMs) can help address these shortcomings and open up fresh opportunities. Specifically, we argue that the examination of (textual) legal artifacts should, first, employ a broader context than sentences, which have widely been used as the units of analysis in past research. Second, the mode of analysis with legal artifacts needs to shift from classification and information extraction to more end-to-end strategies that are not only accurate but also capable of providing explanation and justification. We present a compliance analysis approach designed to address these limitations. We further outline our evaluation plan for the approach and provide preliminary evaluation results based on data processing agreements (DPAs) that must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Our initial findings suggest that our approach yields substantial accuracy improvements and, at the same time, provides justification for compliance decisions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it