Papers for

ai ethics compliance officers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Typed adversarial contracts ensure better auditing of llm data quality

Conflicted Records: Typed Adversarial Contracts for Auditable LLM Output Quality Enforcement

Abstract: LLM-generated records increasingly populate production information systems where they are treated as data assets subject to the same quality expectations as records from operational databases. A single such record can simultaneously satisfy and violate a quality rule: a grounded fact adjacent to a hallucination, a useful answer adjacent to a stereotype. Classical data cleaning cannot resolve this because the two judgments are incompatible over the same span; a single LLM judge cannot either, since it shares the training biases that produced the conflict. Existing interventions such as prompt engineering, chain-of-thought, and RLHF reduce surface error rates but provide no audit trail and cannot distinguish genuine remediation from blanket suppression. The question is whether a deterministic check over structured inter-agent records can catch the defects that referential checks alone miss. We present BiasGuard-D: two adversarial roles drawn from distinct model families exchange typed claim documents, a three-model quorum adjudicates by majority vote, and a combined referential-plus-semantic invariant validates the verdict. The semantic component fires on verdicts referential checks miss; removing the iterative loop drops invariant satisfaction sharply. The deliberation layer transfers from stereotype to hallucination remediation on HaluEval QA with only role-framing changes, raising right-answer recovery by 49 percentage points; the triage gate required a cross-family second auditor to maintain recall on objective hallucination. Every claim, vote, and instruction is stored as a typed record giving operators a provenance trail auditable under emerging AI regulations.

Wed 21 OctDatabasesArtificial IntelligenceComputation and Language
The gist
Large language models (LLMs) sometimes produce records that mix correct facts with errors like hallucinations or stereotypes, making it hard to fix quality problems using standard tools. The authors present a system where two types of AI models challenge each other's claims and a third model votes to decide which parts are accurate. This approach catches errors missed by simpler checks and keeps a detailed record of all judgments, helping people track and audit the quality of AI-generated data. Their method improved correctness significantly on test questions and supports oversight under new AI rules.
Open → 2610.29669v1