MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390738572 · doi:10.1109/tbdata.2024.3352978

GAT-COBO: Cost-Sensitive Graph Neural Network for Telecom Fraud Detection

2024· article· en· W4390738572 on OpenAlexaff
Xinxin Hu, Haotian Chen, Junjie Zhang, Hongchang Chen, Shuxin Liu, Xing Li, Yahui Wang, Xiangyang Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Big Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceGraphArtificial intelligenceMachine learningClassifier (UML)Theoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Along with the rapid evolution of mobile communication technologies, such as 5G, there has been a significant increase in telecom fraud, which severely dissipates individual fortune and social wealth. In recent years, graph mining techniques are gradually becoming a mainstream solution for detecting telecom fraud. However, the graph imbalance problem, caused by the Pareto principle, brings severe challenges to graph data mining. This emerging and complex issue has received limited attention in prior research. In this paper, we propose aGraphATtention network withCOst-sensitiveBOosting (GAT-COBO) for the graph imbalance problem. First, we design a GAT-based base classifier to learn the embeddings of all nodes in the graph. Then, we feed the embeddings into a well-designed cost-sensitive learner for imbalanced learning. Next, we update the weights according to the misclassification cost to make the model focus more on the minority class. Finally, we sum the node embeddings obtained by multiple cost-sensitive learners to obtain a comprehensive node representation, which is used for the downstream anomaly detection task. Extensive experiments on two real-world telecom fraud detection datasets demonstrate that our proposed method is effective for the graph imbalance problem, outperforming the state-of-the-art GNNs and GNN-based fraud detectors. In addition, our model is also helpful for solving the widespread over-smoothing problem in GNNs. The GAT-COBO code and datasets are available athttps://github.com/xxhu94/GAT-COBO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Big DataSame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207