Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
arXiv:2607.13078 (cs)
[Submitted on 12 Jul 2026]
Title:Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows
Authors:Keyur Gabani
View a PDF of the paper titled Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows, by Keyur Gabani
View PDF
HTML (experimental)
Abstract:LLMs are now proposed for fraud detection, scam investigation, content moderation, and other trust-and-safety workflows. Much of the public literature still evaluates them as models, with less attention to their behavior as components in operational pipelines. This creates a practical evidence question: what would justify placing an LLM inside a live workflow with latency, cost, escalation, human-review, and adversarial-risk constraints?
We address this question through a fraud-first survey of deployment evidence. We code 49 operationally relevant sources on LLM use in fraud detection, investigation support, content moderation, and cross-cutting robustness (18 fraud, 14 moderation, 17 cross-cutting), supplemented by 15 contextual references that establish the survey boundaries. These sources include systems, benchmarks, frameworks, and deployment-relevant surveys, not 49 production deployments.
The main finding is an evidence imbalance. Fraud supplies the largest task-specific portion of the coded corpus. The moderation papers, however, include more explicit public evidence on latency, cost, governance, and fairness. Among the 18 fraud and investigation sources, none report clean per-decision latency, per-decision dollar cost, or calibration evidence; most report offline task performance, retrieval gains, or case-study accuracy instead.
The survey contributes a role-and-evidence organizing frame, FORTE, for locating LLMs as classifiers, retrieval interfaces, explanation generators, reviewer assistants, agents, feature extractors, or escalation components. It also contributes a minimum deployment-evidence checklist covering latency budget, cost per decision, decision threshold, explanation integrity, and adversarial pressure. The resulting agenda identifies studies needed to support deployment claims for LLM-based fraud and trust-and-safety work.
| Comments: | 22 pages, 3 figures, 6 tables. Ancillary files include the evidence matrix, search note, and numeric claim check |
| Subjects: | Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2607.13078 [cs.CR] |
| (or arXiv:2607.13078v1 [cs.CR] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.13078
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
|
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
View a PDF of the paper titled Operational Evidence Gaps for LLMs in Fraud Detection and Trust-and-Safety Workflows, by Keyur Gabani
Ancillary-file links:
Ancillary files (details):
Current browse context:
cs.CR
References & Citations
Loading...
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
LoKiFormer: Locality-aware Attention with Decoupled Knowledge Memory for Efficient Large Language Model Pretraining
Aug 14
-
Which Site, and When: A Free-Satellite-Data Test of Himalayan Glacial Lake Bursts, Landslides, and Ice Floods
Aug 14
-
MARCH: Scaling Recurrent Memory with Content-Routed State Anchors
Aug 14
-
Multi-AUV Ad-hoc network-based Target Tracking: A Value Gradient Guidance Multi-Agent Diffusion Reinforcement Learning Approach
Aug 14
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.