Self-Auditing Deep Learning Pipelines for Automated Compliance Validation with Explainability, Traceability, and Regulatory Assurance
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63282/3050-9262.IJAIDSML-V3I1P114Keywords:
Self-auditing, Automated compliance validation, Policy-as-code, Auditability, Traceability, Explainable AI (XAI), Risk scoring, Regulatory assuranceAbstract
Deep learning is increasingly deployed in regulated domains such as healthcare, finance, insurance, and public services, where AI systems must satisfy requirements for privacy, security, fairness, transparency, and accountability. However, compliance assurance in most AI/ML pipelines remains manual, intermittent, and difficult to reproduce, creating gaps when data, features, and model versions change rapidly through continuous retraining and deployment. This paper proposes a self-auditing deep learning pipeline that automates compliance validation across the full ML lifecycle data ingestion, preprocessing, feature engineering, training, evaluation, deployment, and post-deployment monitoring while generating regulator-ready evidence by design. The approach integrates policy-as-code controls to encode governance rules as executable checks, continuous audit hooks to capture tamper-evident logs of datasets, code, configurations, and approvals, and end-to-end lineage to link inputs, transformations, model artifacts, and decisions into a traceability graph. To address transparency expectations, the architecture includes an explainability-driven validation layer that produces standardized explanation artifacts and reason codes, monitors explanation stability across model updates, and flags potential reliance on sensitive attributes. A continuous risk-scoring mechanism aggregates signals from privacy, security, data quality, drift, bias, and explainability to detect violations early and trigger remediation or release blocking. Overall, the proposed framework improves repeatability, reduces human error, and strengthens audit readiness by making compliance measurable, continuous, and reconstructable for every model version
References
[1] Van der Velden, B. H. M., Kuijf, H. J., Gilhuijs, K. G. A., & Viergever, M. A. (2021). Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) in deep learning‑based medical image analysis. arXiv. arXiv:2107.
[2] Ashmore, R., Calinescu, R., & Paterson, C. (2019). Assuring the machine learning lifecycle: Desiderata, methods, and challenges. arXiv. arXiv: 1905.04223.
[3] Webb, G. I., & Zheng, S. (2021). Automated interpretation of rapid diagnostic test images using machine learning. arXiv. arXiv:2106.05382.
[4] Langer, M., Baum, K., Hartmann, K., Hessel, S., Speith, T., & Wahl, J. (2021). Explainability auditing for intelligent systems: A rationale for multi disciplinary perspectives. arXiv. arXiv:2108.07711.
[5] Pery, A., Rafiei, M., Simon, M., & van der Aalst, W. M. P. (2021). Trustworthy artificial intelligence and process mining: Challenges and opportunities. arXiv. arXiv:2110.02707.
[6] Chandrasekaran, V., Jia, H., Thudi, A., Travers, A., Yaghini, M., & Papernot, N. (2021). SoK: Machine learning governance. arXiv preprint arXiv: 2109.10870.
[7] Song, L., & Mittal, P. (2020). Systematic evaluation of privacy risks of machine learning models. arXiv. arXiv:2003.10595.
[8] Al-Jumeily, D., Hussain, A., & Fergus, P. (2015). Using adaptive neural networks to provide self-healing autonomic software. International Journal of Space-Based and Situated Computing, 5(3), 129-140.
[9] Zhong, Z., Xu, M., Rodriguez, M. A., Buyya, R., & Cheng, C. (2021). Machine learning based orchestration of containers: A taxonomy and future directions. arXiv. arXiv:2106.12739.
[10] Amor, R., & Dimyadi, J. (2021). The promise of automated compliance checking. Developments in the built environment, 5, 100039.
[11] Chieu, T. C., Singh, M., Tang, C., Viswanathan, M., & Gupta, A. (2012, September). Automation system for validation of configuration and security compliance in managed cloud services. In 2012 IEEE Ninth International Conference on e-Business Engineering (pp. 285-291). IEEE.
[12] Kott, A., & Arnold, C. (2013). The promises and challenges of continuous monitoring and risk scoring. IEEE Security & Privacy, 11(1), 90-93.
[13] Gosiewska, A., Kozak, A., & Biecek, P. (2021). Simpler is better: Lifting interpretability-performance trade-off via automated feature engineering. Decision Support Systems, 150, 113556.
[14] Jing, Y., Ahn, G. J., Zhao, Z., & Hu, H. (2014, March). Riskmon: Continuous and automated risk assessment of mobile applications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy (pp. 99-110).
[15] Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence, POLICY AND LEGISLATION, 2021. online. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/proposal-regulation-laying-down-harmonised-rules-artificial-intelligence
[16] Mora Cantallops, M., Sánchez Alonso, S., García Barriocanal, E., & Sicilia, M. Á. (2021). Traceability for trustworthy AI: A review of models and tools. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc5020020.
[17] Sokol, K., & Flach, P. (2019). Explainability fact sheets: A framework for systematic assessment of explainable approaches. arXiv. arXiv:1912.05100.
[18] Fischer, K., & Khoury, N. (2007). The impact of ethical ratings on Canadian security performance: Portfolio management and corporate governance implications. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 47(1), 40-54.










