Large language model (LLM)-based approaches for automated code compliance (ACC) of building regulations are prone to generating incorrect and hallucinated computer-processable rules. This paper introduces P4IR, a two-stage framework that uses supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to instill domain knowledge in an LLM, followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to improve the accuracy of the generated intermediate representations in the form of high-level code skeletons. The framework achieved reductions of up to 23.8% and 38.6% in tree edit distance and token-level Levenshtein distance respectively, relative to the SFT baselines. Comparative analysis demonstrates that this approach in a zero-shot setting outperforms leading LLMs in both code structure and semantics, specifically Claude Opus and Sonnet 4.5, GPT-5.2, Qwen-3-Max, and GLM-4.7, evaluated via few-shot prompting. Additionally, the GRPO stage produced a small yet statistically significant reduction in false positives. By combining SFT with GRPO to optimize directly for domain-specific objectives, this approach offers a path toward more accurate and reliable LLM-based ACC systems.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for compliance and legal reasoning tasks, yet their outputs often lack explicit grounding in legal logic and evidence. We present Code-as-Auditor, an LLM-based framework that extends the model's reasoning capability toward structured and evidence-grounded compliance assessment. The framework translates regulatory information into (1) formalized checklists and executable decision trees, encoding regulations and conditions as interpretable code structures. During inference, each checklist item is (2) dynamically expanded into factual and counterfactual questions, guiding the model to reason over case-specific evidence and potential violations. This process establishes a reasoning pipeline that proceeds from evidence identification, through rule application, to final decision-making, while a self-verification loop improves the logical consistency of the generated code and the traceability of outcomes. Experiments on privacy and data protection scenarios demonstrate that Code-as-Auditor delivers more accurate and evidence-backed evaluations, enabling automated compliance regulation checking grounded in explicit regulatory criteria.
Existing research on large language models (LLMs) for automated code compliance has primarily focused on performance, treating the models as black boxes and overlooking how training decisions affect their interpretive behavior. This paper addresses this gap by employing a perturbation-based attribution analysis to compare the interpretive behaviors of LLMs across different fine-tuning strategies such as full fine-tuning (FFT), low-rank adaptation (LoRA) and quantized LoRA fine-tuning, as well as the impact of model scales which include varying LLM parameter sizes. Our results show that FFT produces attribution patterns that are statistically different and more focused than those from parameter-efficient fine-tuning methods. Furthermore, we found that as model scale increases, LLMs develop specific interpretive strategies such as prioritizing numerical constraints and rule identifiers in the building text, albeit with performance gains in semantic similarity of the generated and reference computer-processable rules plateauing for models larger than 7B. This paper provides crucial insights into the explainability of these models, taking a step toward building more transparent LLMs for critical, regulation-based tasks in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industry.
Large language models (LLMs) have become integral to modern software development, enabling automated code generation at scale. However, validating the correctness of LLM-generated code remains a critical and largely unsolved challenge. Existing approaches either rely on dynamic consensus across multiple code candidates - making them costly and difficult to scale - or on static reasoning that is susceptible to dynamic bugs and order bias. In this paper, we propose TRAILS~ (Targeted Reasoning Agreement via Inputs and Specifications), an approach that grounds LLM reasoning with concrete (input, output) pairs. TRAILS~ first generates diverse test inputs via category partitioning based on the specification, then executes them against the candidate code and prompts LLMs to assess whether the resulting input-output pairs conform to the specification - without ever reasoning over the code itself. Scores are aggregated across inputs, to determines whether the program is likely correct. We evaluate TRAILS~ on two datasets, LiveCodeBench and CoCoClaNeL, across three LLMs (Qwen3Coder-30B, Devstral-Small-24B, and Olmo3.1-Instruct), comparing against HoarePrompt and a Zero-Shot Chain-of-Thought baseline. TRAILS~ improves Matthew Correlation Coefficient by up to 39% relative to Zero-Shot COT and consistently outperforms HoarePrompt. Beyond accuracy, TRAILS~ demonstrates greater stability across seeded runs, reducing sensitivity to LLM non-determinism, and assigns correct labels to a larger set of unique code samples than competing approaches.