跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.30758 · v2

Can Loan Processors and Underwriters Spot AI-Edited Statements? An Empirical Study

首次提交 2026-10-22 13:26
版本更新 2026-10-26 04:07
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:36
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

AI-assisted editing can produce loan documents that preserve familiar issuer layouts while changing the applicant's identity. We investigated whether experienced underwriters and loan processors identify such forgeries in first-pass, document-only review. Three practitioners recruited through Upwork each received one applicant package drawn from 134 forged PDFs derived from 47 genuine financial documents supplied with full consent. The edits preserved amounts, dates and balances; identifier inconsistencies introduced by the pipeline were knowingly retained before distribution. Reviewers were not told that files had been altered and returned 132 file-level judgements. Checking their explanations against the originals yielded 14 edit-supported concerns (10.6%): 12 Suspicious judgements and two Insufficient information judgements. All supported concerns involved identifier disagreements within or across documents, and no reported visual cue identified an actual edit. Thus, approximately one in ten judgements contained evidence of the forgery, despite known inconsistencies remaining in the files. These observations motivate evaluating consistency checks and independent source verification alongside human review. With three reviewer-package pairs and no genuine-file controls, the findings describe this exploratory setting rather than population-wide detection accuracy.

作者备注:6 pages, 2 figures

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v2 · 2026-10-26 04:07 · 最新观测版本

Can Loan Processors and Underwriters Spot AI-Edited Statements? An Empirical Study

AI-assisted editing can produce loan documents that preserve familiar issuer layouts while changing the applicant's identity. We investigated whether experienced underwriters and loan processors identify such forgeries in first-pass, document-only review. Three practitioners recruited through Upwork each received one applicant package drawn from 134 forged PDFs derived from 47 genuine financial documents supplied with full consent. The edits preserved amounts, dates and balances; identifier inconsistencies introduced by the pipeline were knowingly retained before distribution. Reviewers were not told that files had been altered and returned 132 file-level judgements. Checking their explanations against the originals yielded 14 edit-supported concerns (10.6%): 12 Suspicious judgements and two Insufficient information judgements. All supported concerns involved identifier disagreements within or across documents, and no reported visual cue identified an actual edit. Thus, approximately one in ten judgements contained evidence of the forgery, despite known inconsistencies remaining in the files. These observations motivate evaluating consistency checks and independent source verification alongside human review. With three reviewer-package pairs and no genuine-file controls, the findings describe this exploratory setting rather than population-wide detection accuracy.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗