The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Agentic AI Systems Applied to tasks in Financial Services: Modeling and model risk management crews
Open accessAbstract
The advent of large language models has ushered in a new era of agentic systems, where artificial intelligence programs exhibit remarkable autonomous decision-making capabilities across diverse domains. This paper explores agentic system workflows in the financial services industry. In particular, we build agentic crews with human-in-the-loop module that can effectively collaborate to perform complex modeling and model risk management (MRM) tasks. The modeling crew consists of a judge agent and multiple agents who perform specific tasks such as exploratory data analysis, feature engineering, model selection/hyperparameter tuning, model training, model evaluation, and writing documentation. The MRM crew consists of a judge agent along with specialized agents who perform tasks such as checking compliance of modeling documentation, model replication, conceptual soundness, analysis of outcomes, and writing documentation. We demonstrate the effectiveness and robustness of modeling and MRM crews by presenting a series of numerical examples applied to credit card fraud detection, credit card approval, and portfolio credit risk modeling datasets.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“This component stack recurs across both academic and industry implementations, including high-stakes domains like finance [39].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Sophisticated memory systems with reflection and experience storage”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“A common set includes the following: - Perception and world modeling-Ingests and structures external inputs (e.g., text, sensors, APIs) into internal representations [41,95]. - Memory (Short-Term, Long-Term, Episodic)-Stores short- and long-term knowledge; retrieval/promotion rules connect past to present reasoning [39,95]. - Planning, Reasoning, and Goal Decomposition-Transforms goals into action”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Common patterns include role-based teams (planner/solver/critic), peer networks with negotiation/voting, and hybrid hierarchies that mix supervisor(s) with collaborating peers.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“but increases testing/monitoring complexity and demands clear traceability of who decided what and why [39,47,97]”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Integration hinges on (i) shared state (what is global vs. local), (ii) protocols for task handoff and conflict resolution, and (iii) placement of evaluators/approvals for safety or compliance.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“This model yields fault tolerance and parallel specialization”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“In decentralized designs, agents each own a subset of components (e.g., local planner + executor + memory) and coordinate via shared context and message passing.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“though at the cost of added integration complexity [39,41,95]”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“layered neuro-symbolic approaches integrate neural inference with symbolic reasoning to manage uncertainty and provide traceability”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Agents also increase model risk management by using automated ML workflows, compliance checks, and by cooperating agent to agent [39].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Stress testing [39] is to test the model with unusual or extreme inputs to see if it stays reliable and functionally adaptable to change.”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
In the citing paper
“Human checks, backup systems, clear logs, and interpersonal support allow them to be more robust [39,95,135].”
From The Rise of Agentic AI: A Review of Definitions, Frameworks, Architectures, Applications, Evaluation Metrics, and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [39]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From LLM Reasoning to Autonomous AI Agents: A Comprehensive Review
Ferrag, M. A., Tihanyi, N., & Debbah, M. A. (2026) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2026.3698694 · Cited by 280
Elgendy, I. A., Helal, M. Y. I., Al-Sharafi, M. A., Albashrawi, M. A., Al-Ahmadi, S., Jeon, I., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2025) · Information Discovery and Delivery · doi:10.1108/idd-03-2025-0068 · Cited by 44
Kong, D., Lin, S., Xu, Z., Wang, Z., Li, M., Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Peng, H., Chen, X., Sha, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.19676 · Cited by 23
The Agentic Regulator: Risks for AI in Finance and a Proposed Agent-based Framework for GovernancePreprint
Kurshan, E., Balch, T. R., & Byrd, D. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6970398 · Cited by 19
Rizinski, M., & Trajanov, D. (2025) · Computers, materials & continua/Computers, materials & continua (Print) · doi:10.32604/cmc.2025.069678 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Okpala, I., Golgoon, A., & Kannan, A. R.
- Affiliations
- Discover Financial Services (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2502.05439
- OpenAlex
- W4407384940
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction
- Keywords
- agentic AI systems, large language models, model risk management, human-in-the-loop, multi-agent systems, financial services, credit card fraud detection, credit card approval, portfolio credit risk, model replication, feature engineering, hyperparameter optimization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Agentic AI Systems Applied to tasks in Financial Services: Modeling and model risk management crews. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2502.05439
- The paper
- Okpala, I., Golgoon, A., & Kannan, A. R. (2025). Agentic AI Systems Applied to tasks in Financial Services: Modeling and model risk management crews. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2502.05439
