Rethinking LLMOps for Fraud and AML: Building a Compliance-Grade LLM Serving Stack
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Fraud detection and anti-money-laundering (AML) compliance are high-value domains for large language models (LLMs), but their serving requirements differ sharply from generic chat workloads. Compliance prompts are often prefix-heavy, schema-constrained, and evidence-rich, combining reusable policy instructions, risk taxonomies, transaction or document context, and short structured outputs such as JSON labels or risk factors. These properties make prefix reuse, KV-cache efficiency, runtime tuning, model orchestration, and output validation first-order systems concerns. This paper introduces a workload-aware LLMOps stack for fraud and AML workloads using self-hosted open-weight models such as Meta Llama and Alibaba Qwen. The stack combines vLLM-style runtime tuning, PagedAttention, Automatic Prefix Caching, multi-adapter serving, adapter and prompt-length-aware batching, sleep/wake lifecycle management, speculative decoding, and optional prefill/decode disaggregation. To avoid exposing institution-specific data, the reproducibility track converts public synthetic AML datasets, including IBM AML and SAML-D, into prefix-heavy compliance prompts with reusable policy text, transaction evidence, typology definitions, and schema-constrained outputs. We also incorporate an LLM-as-judge quality gate using deterministic compliance checks, reference metrics, expert-adjudicated calibration data where available, and multi-judge rubric scoring. Across public-synthetic AML workloads and controlled serving benchmarks, workload-aware tuning improved throughput from 612-650 to 3,600 requests/hour, reduced P99 latency from 31-38 seconds to 6.4-8.7 seconds, and increased GPU utilization from 12% to 78%. These results show that regulated LLM performance is a workload-design, serving-optimization, and quality-gating problem, not only a model-selection problem.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 11 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 May 2026.
Builds on
11 of 31 references.
References · 11
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2023Splitwise: Efficient generative LLM inference using phase splittingcited by 536
- 2025EAGLE-3: Scaling up Inference Acceleration of Large Language Models via Training-Time Testcited by 318
- 2024Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Modelscited by 301
- 2023Prompt Cache: Modular Attention Reuse for Low-Latency Inferencecited by 255
- 2024Cost-Efficient Large Language Model Serving for Multi-turn Conversations with CachedAttentioncited by 159
- 2025LMCache: An Efficient KV Cache Layer for Enterprise-Scale LLM Inferencecited by 119
- 2024LLM Inference Serving: Survey of Recent Advances and Opportunitiescited by 46
- 2026AIConfigurator: Lightning-Fast Configuration Optimization for Multi-Framework LLM Servingcited by 9
- 2025Co-Investigator AI: The Rise of Agentic AI for Smarter, Trustworthy AML Compliance Narrativescited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Explainable AML Triage with LLMs: Evidence Retrieval and Counterfactual Checks
- 2025An Agentic LLM Framework for Adverse Media Screening in AML Compliance
- 2025LLM Output Drift: Cross-Provider Validation & Mitigation for Financial Workflows
- 2026IMMACULATE: A Practical LLM Auditing Framework via Verifiable Computation
- 2025LLMs as verification oracles for Solidity
- 2026FinMCP-Bench: Benchmarking LLM Agents for Real-World Financial Tool Use under the Model Context Protocol
- 2026ReguSim: Evaluating LLM Agent Rule Grounding in Financial Compliance
- 2026Ventor-QTest: Threat-Model-Driven Verification of Vendor-Hosted LLM APIs