MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395683488 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17050181

Machine Learning to Enhance the Detection of Terrorist Financing and Suspicious Transactions in Migrant Remittances

2024· article· en· W4395683488 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stanley Munamato Mbiva, Fábio Mathias Corrêa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiteit van die Vrystaat
KeywordsRemittanceFalse positive paradoxTerrorismAnomaly detectionOutlierFinancePovertyFinancial transactionComputer scienceBusinessComputer securityDatabaseArtificial intelligenceEconomicsDatabase transactionEconomic growthPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migrant remittances have become significant in poverty alleviation and microeconomic development in low-income countries. However, the ease of conducting global migrant remittance transfers has also introduced the risk of misuse by terrorist organizations to quickly move and conceal operational funds, facilitating terrorism financing. This study aims to develop an unsupervised machine learning algorithm capable of detecting suspicious financial transactions associated with terrorist financing in migrant remittances. To achieve this goal, a structural equation model (SEM) and an outlier detection algorithm were developed to analyze and identify suspicious transactions among the financial activities of migrants residing in Belgium. The results show that the SEM model classifies a significantly high number of transactions as suspicious, making it prone to detecting false positives. Finally, the study developed an ensemble outlier detection algorithm that comprises an isolation forest (IF) and a local outlier factor (LOF) to detect suspicious transactions in the same dataset. The model performed exceptionally well, being able to detect over 90% of suspicious transactions.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207