CompliBench: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Compliance Violation Detection in Dialogue Systems
Organizations: University of California, Santa Barbara · Cresta
Abstract
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as task-oriented agents in enterprise environments, ensuring their strict adherence to complex, domain-specific operational guidelines is critical. While utilizing an LLM-as-a-Judge is a promising solution for scalable evaluation, the reliability of these judges in detecting specific policy violations remains largely unexplored. This gap is primarily due to the lack of a systematic data generation method, which has been hindered by the extensive cost of fine-grained human annotation and the difficulty of synthesizing realistic agent violations. In this paper, we introduce CompliBench, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of LLM judges to detect and localize guideline violations in multi-turn dialogues. To overcome data scarcity, we develop a scalable, automated data generation pipeline that simulates user-agent interactions. Our controllable flaw injection process automatically yields precise ground-truth labels for the violated guideline and the exact conversation turn, while an adversarial search method ensures these introduced perturbations are highly challenging. Our comprehensive evaluation reveals that current state-of-the-art proprietary LLMs struggle significantly with this task. In addition, we demonstrate that a small-scale judge model fine-tuned on our synthesized data outperforms leading LLMs and generalizes well to unseen business domains, highlighting our pipeline as an effective foundation for training robust generative reward models.
Figures & tables
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Type | Name | Explanation |
| 1 | Scope mis-attribution | Wrong guideline key or workflow phase selected for a turn. |
| 2 | Semantic misunderstanding | Misinterpreted conversation content or guideline meaning. |
| 3 | False negative on satisfaction | Requirement was implicitly satisfied but judged as unmet. |
| 4 | False positive on violation | Compliant behavior flagged as a violation. |
| 5 | Overly strict | Enforced guideline beyond intent, e.g., verbatim phrasing required. |
| 6 | Accepting non-equivalent behavior | Clear violation accepted as compliant. |
| Error type | Ins. | Health | Air. | Total |
| Type 1: Scope mis-attr. | 62 | 31 | 26 | 119 |
| Type 5: Overly strict | 13 | 8 | 4 | 25 |
| Type 7: Reasoning chain | 7 | 11 | 7 | 25 |
| Type 8: Ignored evidence | 15 | 0 | 4 | 19 |
| Type 2: Semantic misund. | 0 | 3 | 9 | 12 |
| Type 4: False positive | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Error type | Ins. | Health | Air. | Total |
| Type 1: Scope mis-attr. | 66 | 80 | 34 | 180 |
| Type 6: Non-equiv. accepted | 11 | 5 | 25 | 41 |
| Type 8: Ignored evidence | 0 | 31 | 2 | 33 |
| Type 7: Reasoning chain | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Type 2: Semantic misund. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 77 | 117 | 62 | 256 |
LLM Evaluation
Large language model evaluation measures what models can do, how reliably they do it, and whether benchmark scores predict real-world performance.
See all 2,355 papers