Finding Suspicious Activities in Financial Transactions and Distributed Ledgers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Banks and financial institutions around the world must comply with several policies for the prevention of money laundering and in order to combat the financing of terrorism. Nowadays, there is a raise in the popularity of novel financial technologies such as digital currencies, social trading platforms and distributed ledger payments, but there is a lack of approaches to enforce the aforementioned regulations accordingly. Software tools are developed to detect suspicious transactions usually based on knowledge from experts in the domain, but as new criminal tactics emerge, detection mechanisms must be updated. Suspicious activity examples are scarce or nonexistent, hindering the use of supervised machine learning methods. In this paper, we describe a methodology for analyzing financial information without the use of ground truth. A user suspicion ranking is generated in order to facilitate human expert validation using an ensemble of anomaly detection algorithms. We apply our procedure over two case studies: one related to bank fund movements from a private company and the other concerning Ripple network transactions. We illustrate how both examples share interesting similarities and that the resulting user ranking leads to suspicious findings, showing that anomaly detection is a must in both traditional and modern payment systems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".