MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603844 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-162

Research on Audit Data Anomaly Detection and Risk Assessment Method Based on Data Mining Technology

2025· article· en· W4409603844 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYunnan UniversityTianjin UniversityTianjin University of Technology
KeywordsAnomaly detectionAuditData miningAnomaly (physics)Data scienceComputer scienceBusinessAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital auditing has become the key to the transformation and upgrading of the auditing field.Financial audit data anomaly detection needs to combine multiple aspects of information, and it is of great practical significance to utilize the existing technical means to discover financial anomalies in the limited content.In this paper, based on the limitations of the weighted KNN deep neural network algorithm, a multi-branch deep neural network is proposed and a cost-sensitive loss function is designed.Combining the qualitative and quantitative methods of risk assessment, the enterprise audit risk assessment index system is constructed, the indexes are standardized, and the results of enterprise audit risk assessment are analyzed.The specific application effect of the assessment model is analyzed from the aspects of industry status and key financial performance, and the relevant strategies for corporate audit risk response are proposed.In the 1st risk assessment, 8 of the 20 enterprises are above higher risk, 6 are medium risk, and 6 are below lower risk.The results of the 2nd audit risk assessment have varying degrees of reduction between -0.3663 and -0.0119.From 2017, the overall net profit growth rate of enterprises is decreasing year by year, especially in the period from 2019 to 2020, and the net profit growth rate of the industry in 2020 is -24.87%, which predicts that the future development of the industry is not optimistic.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207