mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

KONTOGRAPH: Verified Point-in-Time Feature Consistency and Amortised Explanation for Real-Time Anti-Money Laundering under a 200 ms Decision Budget

arXiv 2608.22389 ↗First posted 23 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Regulation (EU) 2024/886 obliges European payment service providers to settle euro credit transfers in under ten seconds, around the clock. This removes both the overnight batch window in which anti-money-laundering (AML) analytics traditionally ran and the settlement delay that made recovery possible, forcing detection, explanation and decision inside a single-digit-second envelope. We present KONTOGRAPH, an end-to-end AML pipeline for the SEPA Instant rail built under a self-imposed 200 ms 99th-percentile budget, and report an empirical study on 1,562,860 simulated payments with injected typologies and deliberately incomplete labels. Three findings are of interest beyond the system itself. First, a temporal graph network with per-node memory improves PR-AUC over a gradient-boosted tabular baseline from 0.0053 to 0.1717, a paired day-blocked bootstrap difference of +0.166 with 95% CI [0.105, 0.241]; per-node memory alone more than doubles the score. Second, expressing each feature once and compiling it to three execution backends, with equivalence enforced by property-based tests that perturb the future, surfaced three point-in-time violations that code review had passed--each of which would have inflated reported performance. Third, and most consequential for practice, exporting the deployed tree ensemble to ONNX changed only 7.4 × 10-8 in mean score yet altered 0.26% of decisions and inflated the alert volume by 12%, because 32-bit accumulation perturbs scores across a cost-optimal threshold of 3.98 × 10-4. We argue that a serving-format conversion must be treated as a model change until measured, and that fidelity metrics for subgraph explainers can be vacuous when candidate neighbourhoods are small--a null result we report in full.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Aug 2026.

Builds on

10 of 21 references.

References · 10

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
  3. 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
  4. 2020Temporal Graph Networks for Deep Learning on Dynamic Graphscited by 521
  5. 2020Inductive Representation Learning on Temporal Graphscited by 454
  6. 2019Predicting Dynamic Embedding Trajectory in Temporal Interaction Networkscited by 443
  7. 2020Parameterized Explainer for Graph Neural Networkcited by 423
  8. 2021On Explainability of Graph Neural Networks via Subgraph Explorationscited by 280
  9. 2019Anti-Money Laundering in Bitcoin: Experimenting with Graph Convolutional Networks for Financial Forensicscited by 158
  10. 2023Realistic Synthetic Financial Transactions for Anti-Money Laundering Modelscited by 47

Built on by

Not cited yet.