KONTOGRAPH: Verified Point-in-Time Feature Consistency and Amortised Explanation for Real-Time Anti-Money Laundering under a 200 ms Decision Budget
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
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2019ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Modelscited by 523
- 2020Temporal Graph Networks for Deep Learning on Dynamic Graphscited by 521
- 2020Inductive Representation Learning on Temporal Graphscited by 454
- 2019Predicting Dynamic Embedding Trajectory in Temporal Interaction Networkscited by 443
- 2020Parameterized Explainer for Graph Neural Networkcited by 423
- 2021On Explainability of Graph Neural Networks via Subgraph Explorationscited by 280
- 2019Anti-Money Laundering in Bitcoin: Experimenting with Graph Convolutional Networks for Financial Forensicscited by 158
- 2023Realistic Synthetic Financial Transactions for Anti-Money Laundering Modelscited by 47
Built on by
Not cited yet.