An AI Assistant for Automating Anti-Corruption Expertise of Draft Legislation Based on the TRACE Framework
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
We present an AI assistant for automating anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation based on the TRACE architecture, designed to screen bills for corruption risks: pinpoint provisions an expert would criticise and name the regulatory defect in each. The pipeline combines a deterministic parsing core, model-guided single-provision qualification, rule-based factor assignment, and external human oversight. To evaluate the assistant, we constructed an open benchmark from the published conclusions of Ukraine's National Agency on Corruption Prevention (NAZK), comprising 132 draft laws with 474 model-extracted findings. A system flag agrees with a finding when it targets a compatible provision and an LLM judge rates the risk as the same (strict) or partly the same (lenient). On 100 draft laws, the pipeline matches 0.28 of the findings within its top ten flags using the local Gemma 4 31B model, 0.30 with Sonnet 5.5, and 0.43-0.46 across all flags (non-blind; the frozen blind baseline achieves 0.21, 95% CI 0.16-0.26). Across all runs, most misses occur on provisions that the system located but qualified as a different risk, and none of the 32 legal-collision findings was matched. On 21 acts held out from tuning, the pipeline outperforms a monolithic prompt containing the full methodology under the strict measure, though not under the lenient one, and Opus 5.5 adds nothing over Sonnet. The reported scores reflect agreement with model-extracted findings rated by an LLM judge whose two access routes agree on 73 of 74 labels, without human expert validation.
Results and benchmarks
We present an AI assistant for automating anti-corruption expertise of draft legislation based on the TRACE architecture, designed to screen bills for corruption risks: pinpoint provisions an expert would criticise and name the regulatory defect in each.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Instruction tuning
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.