Artificial Intelligence and Risk Management in Financial Institutions: Evidence from the UK Banking Sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a transformative force in the global financial sector, reshaping how institutions assess, predict, and mitigate risks. In the United Kingdom, major financial institutions have rapidly adopted AI-driven technologies to enhance operational efficiency and ensure regulatory compliance.Objective: This study investigates the impact of AI on risk assessment and management among financial institutions in the United Kingdom, focusing on the extent of AI tool adoption and its influence on decision-making and compliance processes.Method: A quantitative survey research design was employed. Data were collected from 150 banking professionals across five major institutions, Barclays, Halifax, Lloyds, Nationwide Building Society, and NatWest Bank, using a structured five-point Likert scale questionnaire. A total of 138 valid responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.Results: Findings revealed widespread adoption of AI tools such as chatbots, robotic process automation (RPA), credit scoring models, behavioral biometrics, and algorithmic trading. Respondents strongly agreed that AI automates critical aspects of risk management (Mean = 4.43), streamlines KYC and AML compliance (Mean = 4.41), and enhances fraud detection (Mean = 4.20). The results further indicated improved precision in risk modeling and decision-making processes (Mean = 4.30).Conclusion: The study concludes that AI has significantly enhanced efficiency, accuracy, and transparency in risk management among UK financial institutions. However, concerns persist regarding algorithmic bias, ethical accountability, and data privacy. The study recommends that financial institutions adopt explainable AI frameworks and regulators develop ethical guidelines for responsible AI integration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".