Deep Learning Model Based Research on Anomaly Detection and Financial Fraud Identification in Corporate Financial Reporting Statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial frauds, often executed through asset transfers and profit inflation, aim to reduce taxes and secure credits. To enhance the accuracy and efficiency of accounting data auditing, this study proposes an anomaly detection scheme based on a deep autoencoder neural network. Financial statement entries are extracted from the accounting information system, and global and local anomaly features are defined based on the attribute values of normal and fraudulent accounts, corresponding to individual and combined anomaly attribute values. The AE network is trained to identify anomalies using account attribute scores. Results demonstrate classification accuracies of 91.7%, 90.3%, and 90.9% for sample ratios of 8:2, 7:3, and 6:4, respectively. The precision, recall, and F1 score reach 90.85%, 90.77%, and 90.81%, respectively. Training takes 95.81ms, with recognition classification requiring only 0.02ms. The proposed deep neural network achieves high recognition accuracy and speed, significantly improving the detection of financial statement anomalies and fraud.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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 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".