AI in risk management: An analytical comparison between the U.S. and Nigerian banking sectors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comprehensive review of the application and impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in risk management within the banking sectors of the United States and Nigeria, emphasizing a comparative analysis. The objective is to assess how AI technologies are adopted and implemented in risk management practices across these diverse banking environments, identifying the benefits achieved and the challenges faced. The review synthesizes existing literature, including case studies, industry reports, and academic research, to outline the current state of AI in risk management. It delves into various risk types such as credit, market, operational, and compliance risks, exploring the specific AI tools and techniques employed to address these risks in each country. Key findings suggest that U.S. banks have a more mature implementation of AI in risk management, characterized by the adoption of advanced analytics, machine learning models, and natural language processing for enhanced decision-making, fraud detection, and compliance monitoring. In contrast, the Nigerian banking sector is at a nascent stage of AI adoption, with efforts hampered by challenges like inadequate technological infrastructure, regulatory hurdles, and a lack of skilled professionals in AI. Despite these differences, the paper identifies a strong interest and potential for growth in AI applications within the Nigerian banking sector, spurred by an increasing recognition of AI's value in enhancing competitiveness and meeting regulatory demands. Conclusively, the review underscores the critical role of supportive regulatory policies, investment in technological infrastructure, and capacity building in human capital as pivotal elements for fostering the effective integration of AI in risk management. The comparative analysis reveals both the disparities and potential areas of collaboration between the U.S. and Nigerian banking sectors, advocating for a global dialogue on best practices and strategies for AI adoption in risk management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".