CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 23, 2026

Explainable AML Triage with LLMs: Evidence Retrieval and Counterfactual Checks

arXiv AI Archived Apr 23, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.19755v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Anti-money laundering (AML) transaction monitoring generates large volumes of alerts that must be rapidly triaged by investigators under strict audit and governance constraints. While large language models (LLMs) can summarize heterogeneous evidence and draft rationales, unconstrained generation is risky in regulated workflows due to hallucinations, weak provenance, and explanations that are not faithful to the underlying decision. We propose an ex

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 22 Mar 2026] Explainable AML Triage with LLMs: Evidence Retrieval and Counterfactual Checks Dorothy Torres, Wei Cheng, Ke Hu Anti-money laundering (AML) transaction monitoring generates large volumes of alerts that must be rapidly triaged by investigators under strict audit and governance constraints. While large language models (LLMs) can summarize heterogeneous evidence and draft rationales, unconstrained generation is risky in regulated workflows due to hallucinations, weak provenance, and explanations that are not faithful to the underlying decision. We propose an explainable AML triage framework that treats triage as an evidence-constrained decision process. Our method combines (i) retrieval-augmented evidence bundling from policy/typology guidance, customer context, alert triggers, and transaction subgraphs, (ii) a structured LLM output contract that requires explicit citations and separates supporting from contradicting or missing evidence, and (iii) counterfactual checks that validate whether minimal, plausible perturbations lead to coherent changes in both the triage recommendation and its rationale. We evaluate on public synthetic AML benchmarks and simulators and compare against rules, tabular and graph machine-learning baselines, and LLM-only/RAG-only variants. Results show that evidence grounding substantially improves auditability and reduces numerical and policy hallucination errors, while counterfactual validation further increases decision-linked explainability and robustness, yielding the best overall triage performance (PR-AUC 0.75; Escalate F1 0.62) and strong provenance and faithfulness metrics (citation validity 0.98; evidence support 0.88; counterfactual faithfulness 0.76). These findings indicate that governed, verifiable LLM systems can provide practical decision support for AML triage without sacrificing compliance requirements for traceability and defensibility. Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2604.19755 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.19755v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.19755 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Dorothy Torres [view email] [v1] Sun, 22 Mar 2026 05:51:40 UTC (498 KB) Access Paper: view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs cs.LG References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 23, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 23, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗