MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409791783 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127a-469

Financial fraud identification model construction based on topological data analysis

2025· article· en· W4409791783 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Topological data analysisBusinessComputer scienceTopology (electrical circuits)Data miningData scienceMathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing complexity of the financial market, corporate financial fraud events occur frequently, posing a serious challenge to investors and market regulators.Aiming at the limitations of traditional financial fraud recognition methods, this paper constructs a financial fraud recognition model MCN based on the topological data analysis method.The model consists of two parts: the Mapper algorithm and one-dimensional convolutional neural network (1DCNN), which combines the global topology extracted by the Mapper algorithm with the local features of the IDCNN to realize the effective identification of financial fraud samples.In order to evaluate the recognition performance of the model, this paper controls the topological feature extraction method unchanged and the classifier unchanged respectively, and compares the performance of the MCN model with other financial fraud recognition models.The results show that the Acc and F1-score of the MCN-based financial fraud recognition model in this paper are 98.69% and 97.64%, respectively, which are better than other models in both perspectives, proving the superiority of the financial fraud recognition model based on topological data analysis constructed in this paper, and thus providing powerful technical support for the regulation of the financial market and the risk management of enterprises.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.271 · 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