compliance monitoring teams

Abstract: Rule-governed contextual decision tasks require models to apply specified rules to case-specific context and evidence. Written rules can leave gaps in decision guidance and process evaluation, while reference judgments vary in their support from the rules and evidence. To address these challenges, we introduce AdaptEvo, a framework for learning under imperfect supervision that couples confidence-adaptive policy optimization with evolving decision knowledge and evaluation rubrics. Its Training module uses Confidence-Adaptive GRPO (CA-GRPO) to balance outcome and process rewards according to reference confidence. Its Evolution module synthesizes reusable decision knowledge from recurring failures across training cases and refines process rubrics to detect overlooked errors. To support empirical evaluation, we construct an industrial multimodal content moderation dataset comprising a training set and In-Period and Out-of-Period test sets, with the latter collected under changed rules. Using Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, AdaptEvo achieves 61.9% exact-label accuracy and 72.2% binary decision accuracy on In-Period, exceeding GRPO by 7.5 and 3.7 percentage points, respectively. On Out-of-Period, the policy trained with CA-GRPO retains exact-label accuracy gains over the base model across evaluated checkpoints without injected decision knowledge, while GRPO declines with continued training. CA-GRPO also outperforms the tested fixed reward mixtures on both Out-of-Period metrics.

Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the source the system cites. Current grounded-generation pipelines score the answer as a whole, so a correct conclusion can rest on fabricated or loosely matched citations and still score well. Closing this gap requires both a system built for per-claim verification and an evaluation that measures it. We introduce GANDR (Grounded ANswer DRafter), a two-agent system in which a Drafter writes an answer in a structured legal-reasoning format and a separate Critic, with the same view as a human verifier, audits each claim against its cited source and emits a per-claim audit trace on every round. We pair it with a strict correctness criterion requiring every citation to resolve to a passage the retriever returned. On a 185-item legal benchmark where all six systems share one backbone, one retrieval surface, and one citation instruction, GANDR ranks first on every primary metric, reaching 70.8% strict accuracy and leading the strongest baseline by 11.3 points (p<0.01). Reverting the protocol-anchored commit rule lowers strict accuracy by 22.7 points, and the strict lead stays positive on three further backbones, at +3.2 to +6.5 points. This lead traces to the Drafter configuration and the protocol-anchored commit, not to rewriting. Against two law-trained annotators the audit flags under-supported claims at F1 0.84 as a binary detector, while its four-way verdict labels agree only weakly and are advisory. Code is available upon request.