Compliance-by-Construction Argument Graphs: Using Generative AI to Produce Evidence-Linked Formal Arguments for Certification-Grade Accountability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
High-stakes decision systems increasingly require structured justification, traceability, and auditability to ensure accountability and regulatory compliance. Formal arguments commonly used in the certification of safety-critical systems provide a mechanism for structuring claims, reasoning, and evidence in a verifiable manner. At the same time, generative artificial intelligence systems are increasingly integrated into decision-support workflows, assisting with drafting explanations, summarizing evidence, and generating recommendations. However, current deployments often rely on language models as loosely constrained assistants, which introduces risks such as hallucinated reasoning, unsupported claims, and weak traceability. This paper proposes a compliance-by-construction architecture that integrates Generative AI (GenAI) with structured formal argument representations. The approach treats each AI-assisted step as a claim that must be supported by verifiable evidence and validated against explicit reasoning constraints before it becomes part of an official decision record. The architecture combines four components: i) a typed Argument Graph representation inspired by assurance-case methods, ii) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to draft argument fragments grounded in authoritative evidence, iii) a reasoning and validation kernel enforcing completeness and admissibility constraints, and iv) a provenance ledger aligned with the W3C PROV standard to support auditability. We present a system design and an evaluation strategy based on enforceable invariants and worked examples. The analysis suggests that deterministic validation rules can prevent unsupported claims from entering the decision record while allowing GenAI to accelerate argument construction.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Apr 2026.
Builds on
8 of 18 references.
References · 8
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,592
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,582
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2016Practical Secure Aggregation for Federated Learning on User-Held Datacited by 178
- 2021Reviewable Automated Decision-Making: A Framework for Accountable Algorithmic Systemscited by 30
- 2021Human-AI Interactions in Public Sector Decision-Making: "Automation Bias" and "Selective Adherence" to Algorithmic Advicecited by 22
- 2025Large Language Models in Argument Mining: A Surveycited by 14
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Explainable Compliance Detection with Multi-Hop Natural Language Inference on Assurance Case Structure
- 2026An Agentic RAG and Evaluation Framework for Assurance Case Generation: Industrial Use Case for the EU Cyber Resilience Act Compliance
- 2026ART: Adaptive Reasoning Trees for Explainable Claim Verification
- 2025Standard Applicability Judgment and Cross-jurisdictional Reasoning: A RAG-based Framework for Medical Device Compliance
- 2026Measuring AI Accountability Through Argumentation Analysis: Can Model Reasoning Withstand Scrutiny?
- 2024Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification
- 2026AI Integrity: A New Paradigm for Verifiable AI Governance
- 2026Code-as-Auditor: Executable Compliance Reasoning via Regulation-to-Code