Anti-Money Laundering Machine Learning Pipelines; A Technical Analysis on Identifying High-risk Bank Clients with Supervised Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anti-money laundering (AML) actions and measurements are among the priorities of financial institutions, for which machine learning (ML) has shown to have a high potential. In this paper, we propose a comprehensive and systematic approach for developing ML pipelines to identify high-risk bank clients in a dataset curated for Task 1 of the University of Toronto 2023-2024 Institute for Management and Innovation (IMI) Big Data and Artificial Intelligence Competition. The dataset included 195,789 customer IDs, and we employed a 16-step design and statistical analysis to ensure the final pipeline was robust. We also framed the data in a SQLite database, developed SQL-based feature engineering algorithms, connected our pre-trained model to the database, and made it inference-ready, and provided explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) modules to derive feature importance. Our pipeline achieved a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.961 with a standard deviation (SD) of 0.005. The proposed pipeline achieved second place in the competition.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".