arXiv:2604.19755cs.AIcs.LG2026-04

用可验证的LLM框架提升反洗钱警报的可信判断,避免幻觉与合规风险。

Explainable AML Triage with LLMs: Evidence Retrieval and Counterfactual Checks

  • 通过检索增强证据捆绑,整合政策、客户和交易数据形成可信依据
  • 生成带引用的结构化解释,错误率下降37%,证据支持率达0.88
  • 引入反事实检验,确保结论变化与理由一致,适合金融合规场景

反洗钱(AML)交易监控产生大量警报,需在严格审计与治理约束下快速处理。尽管大语言模型(LLMs)能汇总异构证据并生成推理,但无约束生成存在幻觉、溯源薄弱及解释与决策脱节的风险。本文提出一种可解释的AML警报分级框架,将分级视为证据约束决策过程。方法包括:(i) 从政策/类型指南、客户背景、警报触发条件和交易子图中检索增强证据捆绑;(ii) 采用结构化输出协议,要求明确引用,并区分支持性与矛盾或缺失证据;(iii) 反事实检查验证最小合理扰动是否导致分级建议与理由的一致性变化。在公开合成数据集与模拟器上评估,对比规则、表格与图机器学习基线,以及纯LLM或仅RAG方案。结果表明,证据锚定显著提升可审计性,降低数值与政策幻觉错误;反事实验证进一步增强决策关联解释力与鲁棒性,取得最优整体表现(PR-AUC 0.75;Escalate F1 0.62),并获得高溯源与忠实度指标(引用有效性0.98;证据支持0.88;反事实忠实度0.76)。研究证明,受控可验证的LLM系统可在不牺牲可追溯性与可辩护性的前提下,为AML分级提供实用决策支持。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

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.

反洗钱LLM可解释金融合规

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。