Detecting Anomalous Behaviour from Textual Content in Financial Records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most financial institutions mainly use numerical statistics to detect anomalous (malpractice) activity. The textual content in financial records however contains precious information which to date has not been effectively used for detection of anomalous behaviors by users because these are often unintelligible, cluttered with abbreviations, numbers and symbols, which makes it difficult to build a framework system that can coherently understand and draw conclusions. Rule-based techniques have been proposed but such systems are easy to elude, as they are difficult to generalize and do not scale up. The work presented in this paper differs from previous work in that we exclusively base anomalous activities on text (excluding numerical values) in financial records and treat this as a classification problem for a deep learning network. We propose four solutions using deep learning techniques on textual data to distinguish between normal with anomalous behaviors of the users. The results of our experiments convincingly show that use of the textual content in financial records yields greater accuracy in anomalous behavior detection. They also suggest that deep learning is a viable and effective solution for real time anomaly detection by financial institutions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".