PreprintCited by 477Advanced Graph Neural NetworksPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataSpam and Phishing Detection

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 28 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Semi-supervised Graph Attentive Network for Financial Fraud Detection

Open access
Wang, Daixin, Lin, Jianbin, Cui, Peng, Jia, Quanhui, Wang, Zhen, Fang, Yanming, Yu, Quan, Zhou, Jun, Yang, Shuang, Qi, Yuan·2020·arXiv

Abstract

With the rapid growth of financial services, fraud detection has been a very important problem to guarantee a healthy environment for both users and providers. Conventional solutions for fraud detection mainly use some rule-based methods or distract some features manually to perform prediction. However, in financial services, users have rich interactions and they themselves always show multifaceted information. These data form a large multiview network, which is not fully exploited by conventional methods. Additionally, among the network, only very few of the users are labelled, which also poses a great challenge for only utilizing labeled data to achieve a satisfied performance on fraud detection. To address the problem, we expand the labeled data through their social relations to get the unlabeled data and propose a semi-supervised attentive graph neural network, namedSemiGNN to utilize the multi-view labeled and unlabeled data for fraud detection. Moreover, we propose a hierarchical attention mechanism to better correlate different neighbors and different views. Simultaneously, the attention mechanism can make the model interpretable and tell what are the important factors for the fraud and why the users are predicted as fraud. Experimentally, we conduct the prediction task on the users of Alipay, one of the largest third-party online and offline cashless payment platform serving more than 4 hundreds of million users in China. By utilizing the social relations and the user attributes, our method can achieve a better accuracy compared with the state-of-the-art methods on two tasks. Moreover, the interpretable results also give interesting intuitions regarding the tasks.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2003.01171

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Semi-supervised node-level HGNN approaches exploit partial labels but are constrained by the quality and distribution of labels.

    “Semi-supervised approaches exploit partial labels but are constrained by the quality and distribution of labels.”

    From A Survey of Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks for Cybersecurity Anomaly Detection (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    The SemiGNN section (p. 5) says the model uses labeled and unlabeled users and that having only a small portion of users labeled makes it difficult to learn a good classifier. This supports a constraint from limited labels, but the paper does not establish that label quality or label distribution constrains the approach. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SemiGNN uses hierarchical attention over metapath-defined subgraphs for fraud detection.

    “SemiGNN [68] uses hierarchical attention over metapathdefined subgraphs for fraud detection”

    From A Survey of Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks for Cybersecurity Anomaly Detection (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Introduction (p. 2) and SemiGNN section (p. 3) describe hierarchical node-level and view-level attention for fraud detection. But the paper describes its views as social-relation and attribute graphs, not metapath-defined subgraphs; the Dataset section (p. 6) details how those graphs are built. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SemiGNN leverages both labeled and unlabeled nodes and incorporates hierarchical attention over metapath-based subgraphs, making it well-suited for access fraud scenarios where only partial labels are available and fraud behaviors differ across user roles and access types.

    “SemiGNN [68] introduces a semi-supervised graph attention network designed for fraud detection in financial systems. It leverages both labeled and unlabeled nodes and incorporates hierarchical attention over metapath-based subgraphs. This makes it well-suited for access fraud scenarios where only partial labels are available and fraud behaviors differ across user roles and access types.”

    From A Survey of Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks for Cybersecurity Anomaly Detection (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Operational environments demand reliability, interpretability, and maintainability.

    “Operational environments further demand reliability, interpretability, and maintainability [68].”

    From A Survey of Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks for Cybersecurity Anomaly Detection (2025) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Introduction (p. 1) says financial-service providers and supervisors require interpretable fraud-detection models, supporting the interpretability part of the claim. The passages found on deployment and efficiency (p. 6) do not establish that operational environments demand reliability or maintainability. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [3][3] Quah, Jon TS, and M. Sriganesh. 'l 35.4 (2008): 1721-1732. -
  2. [7][7] Bose, I., and J. Wang. 'Data mining for detection of financial statement fraud in Chinese Companies.' International joint Conference on e-Commerce, e-Administration, e-Society, and e-Education. International Business Academics Consortium (IBAC) and Knowledge Association of Taiwan (KAT), 2007. -
  3. [21][21] Cao, Shaosheng, Wei Lu, and Qiongkai Xu. 'Grarep: Learning graph representations with global structural information.' Proceedings of the 24th ACM international on conference on information and knowledge management. ACM, 2015. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wang, D., Lin, J., Cui, P., Jia, Q., Wang, Z., Fang, Y., Yu, Q., Zhou, J., Yang, S., & Qi, Y.
Affiliations
  • Ant Group (China) (CN)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2020
Pages
598-607
ISSN
1550-4786 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3009901425
Cited by
476
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 105 · 2022: 78 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 16
FWCI
13.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
Keywords
financial fraud detection, graph attention networks, semi-supervised learning, hierarchical attention, interpersonal relationships, user characteristics, interpretable prediction, Alipay

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