Who judges the judges? Governance from metrics: a runtime framework for continuous LLM compliance monitoring
Current approaches to AI compliance treat conformity as a binary, audit-time verdict rather than a continuous, measurable property of production systems. We argue that this compliance fiction is structurally ill-suited to the requirements of the EU AI Act, which demands ongoing human oversight and the detection of emergent behavioural drift in deployed systems. We introduce governance from metrics, a principle whereby regulatory compliance is derived as a continuous signal from runtime observability rather than from static assessments. Building on this principle, we present govllm, an open-source framework implementing a governance-driven routing architecture in which model selection is determined by accumulated compliance scores rather than by latency or cost alone. Central to our approach is a panel of regulatory judges - LLM evaluators specialised per criterion (EU AI Act, GDPR, ANSSI, accessibility) - whose inter-judge disagreement we reframe not as noise but as a regulatory uncertainty signal warranting human arbitration. We validate this approach through a ground truth corpus of 49 annotated prompt/response pairs across five regulatory criteria, evaluated by four small language models (SLMs, 1.7B-7B parameters) running fully on-premise. Agreement rates range from 51.5% (mistral:7b) to 69.1% (phi4-mini), with no single model dominating across all criteria - empirically motivating the Profile-as-jury design. We further document three structural failure modes in small regulatory judges and a judge-specific position bias that degrades agreement by up to 25 percentage points across three question-order conditions (original, reversed, permuted). govllm is released as open-source software to support reproducible AI governance research.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates
LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent…
Can LLM Assist in the Evaluation of the Quality of Machine Learning Explanations?
EXplainable machine learning (XML) has recently emerged to address the mystery mechanisms of machine learning (ML) systems by interpreting their 'black box' results. Despite the development of various explanation methods…
Language ModelingLanguage ModellingLarge Language ModelA Scoping Review of LLM-as-a-Judge in Healthcare and the MedJUDGE Framework
As large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate and process clinical text, scalable evaluation has become critical. LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ), which uses LLMs to evaluate model outputs, offers a scalable alternative to…
HarmMetric Eval: Benchmarking Metrics and Judges for LLM Harmfulness Assessment
The potential of large language models (LLMs) to generate harmful content poses a significant safety risk for data management, as LLMs are increasingly being used as engines for data generation. To assess this risk, nume…
Human-Aligned MLLM Judges for Fine-Grained Image Editing Evaluation: A Benchmark, Framework, and Analysis
Evaluating image editing models remains challenging due to the coarse granularity and limited interpretability of traditional metrics, which often fail to capture aspects important to human perception and intent. Such me…
Image Editing