LEGOS-SLEEC: Tool for Formalizing and Analyzing Normative Requirements
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
Systems interacting with humans, such as assistive robots or chatbots, are increasingly integrated into our society. To prevent these systems from causing social, legal, ethical, empathetic, or cultural (SLEEC) harms, normative requirements specify the permissible range of their behaviors. These requirements encompass both functional and non-functional aspects and are defined with respect to time. Typically, these requirements are specified by stakeholders from a broad range of fields, such as lawyers, ethicists, or philosophers, who may lack technical expertise. Because such stakeholders often have different goals, responsibilities, and objectives, ensuring that these requirements are well-formed is crucial. SLEEC DSL, a domain-specific language resembling natural language, has been developed to formalize these requirements as SLEEC rules. In this paper, we present LEGOS-SLEEC, a tool designed to support interdisciplinary stakeholders in specifying normative requirements as SLEEC rules, and in analyzing and debugging their well-formedness. LEGOS-SLEEC is built using four previously published components, which have been shown to be effective and usable across nine case studies. Reflecting on this experience, we have significantly improved the user interface of LEGOS-SLEEC and its diagnostic support, and demonstrate the effectiveness of these improvements using four interdisciplinary stakeholders. Showcase video URL is https://youtu.be/LLaBLGxSi8A
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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