From Complaint Narratives to Monetary Relief: A Hybrid Machine Learning Framework for CFPB Consumer Complaints

Data-centric curation pipelines frequently rely on model confidence scores to flag and filter noisy or mislabeled training instances. Evaluating this filtering convention on a large-scale consumer lending sample (LendingClub, N = 1,344,936) uncovers an underlying demographic asymmetry: high-income defaulters are disproportionately classified as label noise relative to low-income defaulters (Cramer's V approximately 0.03-0.07). Re-examining this behavior through the lens of equal opportunity [Hardt et al., 2016] reveals a far more severe discrepancy: a 16.86 percentage point gap in true positive rate (recall) between high- and low-income borrowers who ultimately defaulted. Implementing a sequential feature-blinding methodology allows us to isolate the drivers of this disparity across three distinct mechanisms: (1) direct reliance on self-reported applicant income; (2) algorithmic absorption of upstream institutional bias encoded within origination interest rates; and (3) a residual disparity (3.55 percentage points in cross-validation; 2.56 percentage points on a held-out test partition, Z = -4.04, p < 0.0001) that remains even after purging both income and interest rates from the model. Out-of-sample signed SHAP valuations demonstrate that this residual gap is maintained by structural proxies, most notably loan amount and home ownership status. These empirical findings show that simply blinding an algorithm to sensitive attributes fails to ensure fairness when institutional pricing decisions and behavioral proxy variables collectively reconstruct the omitted signals. We outline the practical implications of these findings for auditing data-centric AI workflows within regulated financial institutions.

Money mule accounts are critical facilitators of financial fraud, yet detecting them at scale remains challenging due to the heterogeneous nature of transactional and behavioural data. We present an end-to-end pipeline for customer-level mule detection comprising three stages: (1) a LightGBM classifier trained on 280 engineered features spanning transaction patterns, account demographics, network topology, and temporal behaviour; (2) a TreeSHAP attribution layer that decomposes each prediction into feature contributions; and (3) a large language model (LLM) module that converts SHAP attributions into analyst-facing natural-language narratives. We evaluate across three open-weight LLM families and assess explanation quality through analyst feedback. In a live production deployment, the system achieves a yield rate of 89%, up from 61% under the incumbent rule-based system, with monthly alert volume expanding from 211 to 302, reflecting broader true-positive coverage rather than increased noise. This corresponds to a 60% incremental adverse detection beyond existing review workflows, substantially outperforming the rule-based approach. Qualitative feedback from analysts indicates that LLM-generated narratives reduce cognitive load during alert triage. We further discuss implications of deploying LLM-augmented explainability in regulated financial environments.

Credit-default prediction is an important task in financial decision making. Traditional methods use fitted classifiers such as logistic regression and random forests on tabular features. Large language models (LLMs) have recently been applied to this task through prompting. In this work we study how a fitted classifier and an LLM can be combined for credit-default prediction. We distinguish telling the LLM to imitate a classifier from using the classifier to build the prompt. We hypothesize that a fitted classifier can supply the ranking ability that an LLM prompt lacks. We experiment on the Default of Credit Card Clients dataset, and report recall, F1, and the area under the ROC and precision-recall curves, with bootstrap confidence intervals. We observe that a few-shot LLM has the highest recall (0.47) and F1 (0.50) of any single model but ranks worse than a random forest (AUC-ROC 0.72 against 0.79). Instructing the LLM to imitate a classifier gives no significant change. Pruning the prompt to the classifier's eight most important features raises recall by 0.071 and F1 by 0.032. Adding the classifier's predicted probability to the prompt raises the LLM's AUC-ROC from 0.72 to 0.78, matching the random forest, while keeping 0.118 higher recall than it. The reverse composition, and the use of several classifiers, do not help. We thus recommend a simple classifier-guided prompt for LLM-based credit prediction.