MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413418666 · doi:10.1145/3748719

SparseFraudNet: A Graph-based Approach for Cold-start Fraud Detection with Information Aggregation

2025· article· en· W4413418666 on OpenAlexaff
Quan Bai, Song Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Information Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSpam and Phishing Detection
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsComputer scienceSpectral clusteringLeverage (statistics)GraphCluster analysisAdjacency matrixPurchasingData miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online reviews play a critical role in influencing consumer’s purchasing decision on e-commerce, making them a prime target for manipulation through fraudulent reviews. Although various Fraud Detection (FD) techniques have been presented, a crucial problem still remains unaddressed, i.e., the cold-start problem in FD, which refers to the difficulty in identifying fraudulent reviews due to limited historical data for new users and new products. Existing graph-based detection methods, while effective for well-connected nodes, are suffering Sparse Graph (SG) connections in cold-start FD. In this paper, we propose a novel approach called SparseFraudNet to address the problem of cold-start FD with information aggregation. Specifically, the local information aggregation is proposed to dynamically optimize neighbor selection using Reinforcement Learning (RL) with Bernoulli Multi-Armed Bandit (BMAB), with the goal to capture the five key types of relations among reviews. The global information aggregation is proposed to leverage Graph Coarsening (GC) with manifold learning and spectral clustering to mitigate adjacency matrix sparsity for new users under new products using Sparse Spectral Clustering (SSC). Experiments on the YelpZip-Cold and YelpNYC-Cold datasets demonstrate that the proposed SparseFraudNet approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in FD in terms of accuracy, precision, recall, F1 measure and AUC to identify fraudulent reviews of new users under new products.

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)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Information SystemsSame topicSpam and Phishing DetectionFrench-language works237,207