MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409347223 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i15.33760

Unveiling the Threat of Fraud Gangs to Graph Neural Networks: Multi-Target Graph Injection Attacks Against GNN-Based Fraud Detectors

2025· article· en· W4409347223 on OpenAlexaff
Jinhyeok Choi, Heehyeon Kim, Joyce Jiyoung Whang

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
FundersInstitute for Information and Communications Technology PromotionMinistry of Science and ICT, South Korea
KeywordsComputer securityGraphComputer scienceDetectorTheoretical computer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as an effective tool for fraud detection, identifying fraudulent users, and uncovering malicious behaviors. However, attacks against GNN-based fraud detectors and their risks have rarely been studied, thereby leaving potential threats unaddressed. Recent findings suggest that frauds are increasingly organized as gangs or groups. In this work, we design attack scenarios where fraud gangs aim to make their fraud nodes misclassified as benign by camouflaging their illicit activities in collusion. Based on these scenarios, we study adversarial attacks against GNN-based fraud detectors by simulating attacks of fraud gangs in three real-world fraud cases: spam reviews, fake news, and medical insurance frauds. We define these attacks as multi-target graph injection attacks and propose MonTi, a transformer-based Multi-target one-Time graph injection attack model. MonTi simultaneously generates attributes and edges of all attack nodes with a transformer encoder, capturing interdependencies between attributes and edges more effectively than most existing graph injection attack methods that generate these elements sequentially. Additionally, MonTi adaptively allocates the degree budget for each attack node to explore diverse injection structures involving target, candidate, and attack nodes, unlike existing methods that fix the degree budget across all attack nodes. Experiments show that MonTi outperforms the state-of-the-art graph injection attack methods on five real-world graphs.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207