MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215602957 · doi:10.6339/22-jds1047

A Review on Graph Neural Network Methods in Financial Applications

2022· review· en· W3215602957 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Data Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Graph Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphCategorizationArtificial neural networkFinancial modelingData miningData scienceFinanceArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With multiple components and relations, financial data are often presented as graph data, since it could represent both the individual features and the complicated relations. Due to the complexity and volatility of the financial market, the graph constructed on the financial data is often heterogeneous or time-varying, which imposes challenges on modeling technology. Among the graph modeling technologies, graph neural network (GNN) models are able to handle the complex graph structure and achieve great performance and thus could be used to solve financial tasks. In this work, we provide a comprehensive review of GNN models in recent financial context. We first categorize the commonly-used financial graphs and summarize the feature processing step for each node. Then we summarize the GNN methodology for each graph type, application in each area, and propose some potential research areas.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.012
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.003
Open science0.0180.003
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.199
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it