Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

FAA Framework: A Large Language Model-Based Approach for Credit Card Fraud Investigations

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2506.11635 v1 pith:CSVI73IZ submitted 2025-06-13 cs.CR cs.AI

FAA Framework: A Large Language Model-Based Approach for Credit Card Fraud Investigations

classification cs.CR cs.AI
keywords fraudcardcreditframeworkinvestigationsanalystslargeaddress
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The continuous growth of the e-commerce industry attracts fraudsters who exploit stolen credit card details. Companies often investigate suspicious transactions in order to retain customer trust and address gaps in their fraud detection systems. However, analysts are overwhelmed with an enormous number of alerts from credit card transaction monitoring systems. Each alert investigation requires from the fraud analysts careful attention, specialized knowledge, and precise documentation of the outcomes, leading to alert fatigue. To address this, we propose a fraud analyst assistant (FAA) framework, which employs multi-modal large language models (LLMs) to automate credit card fraud investigations and generate explanatory reports. The FAA framework leverages the reasoning, code execution, and vision capabilities of LLMs to conduct planning, evidence collection, and analysis in each investigation step. A comprehensive empirical evaluation of 500 credit card fraud investigations demonstrates that the FAA framework produces reliable and efficient investigations comprising seven steps on average. Thus we found that the FAA framework can automate large parts of the workload and help reduce the challenges faced by fraud analysts.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. What LLMs explain is not what they believe: Evaluating explanation sufficiency under models' own input beliefs

    cs.LG 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Proposes SCSuff metric for evaluating LLM explanation sufficiency via model-generated alternative inputs, showing explanations are typically insufficient and predictable from hidden states.

  2. Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    A survey of 49 LLM fraud and trust-and-safety papers finds that fraud work reports almost no per-decision latency, cost, or calibration evidence, while moderation work reports more.