MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

AI-Enabled Intelligent Chatbot Ecosystem for Enhancing Customer Experience in Digital Banking Operations

2025· article· W7140408700 on OpenAlexaff
Rajeev Sharma, D. Rajeswari, Akshatha Y, J Jesupriya, Trapty Agarwal, R. Sarankumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in Service Interactions
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChatbotCustomer experienceDigital ecosystemCustomer relationship managementUser experience designThe Internet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid digital transformation of banking services is creating a premise for intelligent, secure and personalized solutions to interact with the customers. In this paper, we propose an AI-enabled chatbot ecosystem to improve the customer's experience in the electronic banking services. Context is integrated into the system with real-time recommendations, rule based natural language processing (NLP) modules, compliant context-based responses, reinforcement learning-based curriculum design and compliance monitoring and fraud detection and prevention. Experimental evaluation shows that our proposed ecosystem endowed with much better performance than existing chatbot models. The developed framework achieved an accuracy of 96.8 %, and a precision of 95.1 %, recall 94.5%, and F1-score of 94.8 % with the reduced-response-time (RTR) of 150 ms. The customer satisfaction index was 92 %, the intent recognition rate 96 % - in other words, it is very reliable and efficient. The results demonstrate the system's capability to provide the indispensable adaptability and security for secure and seamless interaction while reducing the operational costs and enhancing trusted interaction. The proposed ecosystem positions AI-enabled conversational agents as a strategic enabler for future new digital banking services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAI in Service InteractionsFrench-language works237,207