Rethinking LLMOps for Fraud and AML: Building a Compliance-Grade LLM Serving Stack

Prathamesh Vasudeo Naik, Naresh Dintakurthi, Yue Wang
5/11/2026
cs.AIcs.LG

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

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.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{naik2026rethinking,
  title  = {Rethinking LLMOps for Fraud and AML: Building a Compliance-Grade LLM Serving Stack},
  author = {Prathamesh Vasudeo Naik and Naresh Dintakurthi and Yue Wang},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2605.11232},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.11232v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2605.11232.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2605.11232)

Discussion