Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Identification of Regulatory Requirements Relevant to Business Processes: A Comparative Study on Generative AI, Embedding-based Ranking, Crowd and Expert-driven Methods

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.02986 v1 pith:FNXB6SO6 submitted 2024-01-02 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords methodrelevantrequirementsdocumentsregulatorybusinessdomainexperts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Organizations face the challenge of ensuring compliance with an increasing amount of requirements from various regulatory documents. Which requirements are relevant depends on aspects such as the geographic location of the organization, its domain, size, and business processes. Considering these contextual factors, as a first step, relevant documents (e.g., laws, regulations, directives, policies) are identified, followed by a more detailed analysis of which parts of the identified documents are relevant for which step of a given business process. Nowadays the identification of regulatory requirements relevant to business processes is mostly done manually by domain and legal experts, posing a tremendous effort on them, especially for a large number of regulatory documents which might frequently change. Hence, this work examines how legal and domain experts can be assisted in the assessment of relevant requirements. For this, we compare an embedding-based NLP ranking method, a generative AI method using GPT-4, and a crowdsourced method with the purely manual method of creating relevancy labels by experts. The proposed methods are evaluated based on two case studies: an Australian insurance case created with domain experts and a global banking use case, adapted from SAP Signavio's workflow example of an international guideline. A gold standard is created for both BPMN2.0 processes and matched to real-world textual requirements from multiple regulatory documents. The evaluation and discussion provide insights into strengths and weaknesses of each method regarding applicability, automation, transparency, and reproducibility and provide guidelines on which method combinations will maximize benefits for given characteristics such as process usage, impact, and dynamics of an application scenario.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Legal Document Summarization: Enhancing Judicial Efficiency through Automation Detection

    cs.CL 2025-07 reject novelty 1.0 of 10

    A legal document summarization framework is described, but the experiments use four non-legal summarization datasets and generic equations, so the claimed judicial efficiency improvements are not established.

Pith tools