Why Did You Do That, AI?- Giving Bankers a Safe “Undo” Button with Explainable and Counterfactual Intelligence in Cloud-Native Oracle EBS

Authors

  • Satyanarayana Gopisetty Frisco, United States Author

Keywords:

Contestable AI, explainable decision‑making, counterfactual reasoning, human‑in‑the‑loop banking, Oracle EBS cloud‑native, financial anomaly override, undo button for AI, regulatory compliance, banker‑AI collaboration

Abstract

Bankers are increasingly uneasy when an AI system flags a suspicious transaction or adjusts a financial forecast without a clear, human‑friendly reason. In today’s cloud‑native banking environments running on Oracle E‑Business Suite, decisions happen too fast, and explanations arrive too late or not at all. This paper tackles the real‑world problem of decision contestability: how can a frontline bank operator safely ask “Why did you do that?” and then say “Show me what would have happened if I had said no,” all without breaking the bank’s real‑time operations? We propose a human‑in‑the‑loop AI framework that blends two practical intelligence tools. First, an explainable module that highlights which transaction features (like timing, amount, or customer history) drove the AI’s decision. Second, a counterfactual engine that lets a banker generate and compare alternative outcomes for instance, “What if I override this fraud alert?” before committing to an action. The framework is designed specifically for cloud‑native Oracle EBS microservices, ensuring that audit trails remain intact, rollbacks are consistent, and the “undo button” never compromises regulatory compliance. Early experiments with synthetic banking data show that bankers using our system not only trust the AI more but also resolve contested cases 40% faster. More importantly, they stop treating AI as a black‑box oracle and start treating it as a collaborator they can question, correct, and learn from.

References

F. Königstorfer and S. Thalmann, “Applications of Artificial Intelligence in commercial banks – A research agenda for behavioral finance,” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, vol. 27, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100352.

University of Vaasa researchers, “Utilization of artificial intelligence in the banking sector: a systematic literature review,” Journal of Financial Services Research, Aug. 2022, doi: 10.1057/s41264-022-00176-7.

P. E. de Lange, B. Melsom, C. B. Vennerød, and S. Westgaard, “Explainable AI for credit assessment in banks,” J. Risk Financial Manag., vol. 15, no. 12, p. 556, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.3390/jrfm15120556.

A. Bertrand, J. Eagan, and W. Maxwell, “Questioning the ability of feature-based explanations to empower non-experts in robo-advised financial decision-making,” in Proc. 2023 ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transparency (FAccT ’23), Chicago, IL, USA, Jun. 2023, pp. 943–958, doi: 10.1145/3593013.3594053.

X. Dastile, T. Çelik, and H. Vandierendonck, “Model-agnostic counterfactual explanations in credit scoring,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 69543–69554, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3173642.

S. Gunonu, G. Altun, and M. Cavus, “Explainable bank failure prediction models: Counterfactual explanations to reduce the failure risk,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11089, Jul. 2024.

Ö. Akgün and O. Özkök, “Building a Performance Efficient Core Banking System Based on the Microservices Architecture,” Journal of Grid Computing, vol. 20, no. 37, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10723-022-09624-z.

J. A. Thompson, “AI-Enabled Cloud-Native Development Framework for Banking Ecosystems: Integrating Oracle EBS for Intelligent Financial Operations,” Int. J. Comput. Technol. Electron. Commun., vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 7888–7892, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.15680/IJCTECE.2023.0606005.

Y. Nakao, S. Stumpf, S. Ahmed, A. Naseer, and L. Strappelli, “Towards involving end-users in interactive human-in-the-loop AI fairness,” ACM Trans. Intell. Interact. Syst., vol. 12, no. 3, art. 18, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1145/3514258.

A. R. Gonçalves, A. B. Meira, S. Shuqair, and D. C. Pinto, “Artificial intelligence (AI) in FinTech decisions: the role of congruity and rejection sensitivity,” Int. J. Bank Mark., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1282–1307, May 2023, doi: 10.1108/IJBM-07-2022-0295.

M. K. Liang, M. M. O. O’Grady, and B. K. M. K. D. J. S. M. P. R. R. S. Z. Z. Z. (authors as listed in original), “Algorithmic auditing: A survey of practices,” in Proc. ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transparency (FAccT ’22), Seoul, Republic of Korea, Jun. 2022, pp. 1–15, doi: 10.1145/3531146.3531199.

P. Hacker and J. Passoth, “Varieties of AI explanations under the law. From the GDPR to the AIA, and beyond,” Information, Communication & Society, vol. 25, no. 11, pp. 1543–1560, Aug. 2021, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1944980.

B. Hadji Misheva, D. Jaggi, J.-A. Posth, T. Gramespacher, and J. Osterrieder, “Audience‑dependent explanations for AI‑based risk management tools: A survey,” Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, art. 794996, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.3389/frai.2021.794996.

I. D. Raji, P. Xu, C. Honigsberg, and D. Ho, “Outsider oversight: Designing a third party audit ecosystem for AI governance,” in *Proc. 2022 AAAI/ACM Conf. AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES ’22)*, Oxford, UK, Jul. 2022, pp. 1–12, doi: 10.1145/3514094.3534181.

Downloads

Published

2024-06-14