Abstract
The adoption of artificial intelligence in financial fraud prevention has created new opportunities for risk control, but it has also raised concerns about transparency, accountability, and model governance. This article examines how explainable AI and governance-oriented model design can improve fraud prevention and credit risk management. The proposed framework links fraud risk assessment, credit scoring, and supply-chain finance monitoring through a shared governance architecture. It includes model documentation, feature attribution, validation procedures, bias monitoring, and human-in-the-loop review. By combining traditional financial expertise with machine learning-based anomaly detection, the framework improves the interpretability and reliability of financial risk decisions. The article emphasizes that AI models should not replace professional judgment but should provide structured evidence for auditors, credit officers, and compliance managers. The study contributes to the literature by presenting a governance-centered approach to AI-enabled financial risk control, especially for institutions facing regulatory pressure to justify automated decisions.
References
Qiu, M., Li, R., Cheng, Q., Xu, J., & Zheng, J. (2024). Construction of Financial Fraud Risk Assessment Model Assisted by Artificial Intelligence. Learning and Analytics in Intelligent Systems, 41, 606–613. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-69457-8_55.
Bao, W., Xu, K., & Leng, Q. (2024). Research on the Financial Credit Risk Management Model of Real Estate Supply Chain Based on GA-SVM Algorithm. Procedia Computer Science, 243, 900–909. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2024.09.108.
Wang, C., Zheng, G., Zhang, R., & Liu, X. (2026). DPPF: Dual-Path Pre-Fusion With Semantic-Guided Encoding for Remote Sensing Image Captioning. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing.
Guo, Z., Zhao, K., & Zhang, L. (2026). InstanceRSR: Real-World Super-Resolution via Instance-Aware Representation Alignment. ICASSP 2026 - 2026 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Barcelona, Spain, 10577–10581. doi: 10.1109/ICASSP55912.2026.11462690.
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2019). Fairness and Machine Learning.
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608.
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017). European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation.” AI Magazine, 38(3), 50–57.
Molnar, C. (2022). Interpretable Machine Learning. 2nd ed.
Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high-stakes decisions. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215.
Arrieta, A. B., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., et al. (2020). Explainable artificial intelligence: Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges. Information Fusion, 58, 82–115.
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). “Why should I trust you?” Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of KDD 2016, 1135–1144.
Ye X, Zhang J, Cheng Z, Lu F, Wen Z, Yu G, Chen G, Xie F, Qiao D, Xing J, Tan W, Zhao D and Ren M (2025) Hemodynamic modeling of aortic arch aneurysm treatment using the Castor™ branched stent graft: a virtual coil embolization simulation framework. Front. Physiol. 16:1629346. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2025.1629346
