Explainable AML Triage with LLMs: Evidence Retrieval and Counterfactual Checks
arXiv AIArchived 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?)