Financial fraud detection: the use of visualization techniques in credit card fraud and money laundering domains
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to reviews the literature on applying visualization techniques to detect credit card fraud (CCF) and suspicious money laundering transactions. Design/methodology/approach In surveying the literature on visual fraud detection in these two domains, this paper reviews: the current use of visualization techniques, the variations of visual analytics used and the challenges of these techniques. Findings The findings reveal how visual analytics is used to detect outliers in CCF detection and identify links to criminal networks in money laundering transactions. Graph methodology and unsupervised clustering analyses are the most dominant types of visual analytics used for CCF detection. In contrast, network and graph analytics are heavily used in identifying criminal relationships in money laundering transactions. Originality/value Some common challenges in using visualization techniques to identify fraudulent transactions in both domains relate to data complexity and fraudsters’ ability to evade monitoring mechanisms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it