Papers for

fraud detection analysts

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Graph neural network explanations made interactive and queryable for large data

Declarative Explanations for Graph Neural Networks: A Demonstration

Abstract: Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have proven effective for graph analytical tasks, yet their "black-box" nature complicates the understanding of their layer-wise behavior and hinders their application to large graphs. We demonstrate SliceGXQ, an end-to-end declarative and interactive system for querying and exploring layer-wise explanations for GNNs over large-scale graphs. In particular, SliceGXQ provides (1) an interactive graphical user interface for dataset, model, and explanation configuration; (2) a lightweight SPARQL-like parser that allows users to specify target nodes, layers, explanation modes, and constraints; and (3) an integrated execution and visualization workflow that invokes SliceGX as its underlying explanation engine. We demonstrate how users can diagnose a misclassified node, identify problematic layers and influential messages, and perform targeted model debugging, together with large-scale graph interpretation and fraud-detection analysis. Our demonstration video and source code are available at https://github.com/jinzhaoqet/SliceGXQ.

Mon 19 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) help analyze complex network data but can be hard to understand because of their many layers. The authors created SliceGXQ, a tool that lets users interactively explore and explain how GNNs work on large graphs. People can use it to find mistakes, see which parts of the model influence decisions, and debug or analyze big network problems like fraud. The tool uses an easy language to ask questions and shows results visually.
Open → 2610.26104v1

Paid feature observation improves predictions beyond simple variance measures

Beyond Second-Order Information: Paid Logistic Regression with Noisy Features

Abstract: We consider online binary prediction with paid stochastic features, where the learner can spend resources to obtain better observations of the underlying features. This setting is motivated by applications such as medical testing, where additional cost can provide more precise measurements of patient's features for predicting a binary outcome. At each round, a latent feature is drawn i.i.d., the response is generated through a logistic model, and the learner chooses how much to pay before observing a noisy version of the feature. The goal of learner is to jointly control prediction loss and acquisition cost. In contrast to the former result on the online linear regression with paid features, covariance information alone is no longer sufficient: two noise distributions with the same covariance may induce different optimal logistic losses, and lower variance can even lead to higher loss. Under a structural ordering in which larger payments yield better observations by removing independent noise, we obtain $\widetilde O(\sqrt{T})$ regret when the noise structure is known and $\widetilde O(T^{2/3})$ regret when it is unknown, with matching lower bounds up to logarithmic factors.

Fri 9 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Getting better information about a situation often costs money, like paying for medical tests to get clearer results. This paper studies how to best decide when and how much to pay for better data to predict yes/no outcomes accurately. The authors found that simply knowing the variability of the noise in data isn't enough to make good decisions when the prediction model is logistic. They show that paying more to reduce certain noises helps, and they offer mathematical guarantees on how well their approach works, even when the noise details are unknown.
Open → 2610.12919v1

Pfn features improve anomaly detection in tabular data sets

Adapting prior-data fitted networks for tabular anomaly detection

Abstract: While deep features have transformed anomaly detection in images and video, their impact on tabular data has been less substantial, partly due to the limited availability of strong deep representations. Recently, prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) have emerged as a promising source of such representations for tabular data. In this work, we investigate how PFN representations can be adapted and leveraged for anomaly detection. The question is harder than it looks. No anomalies are available before deploy- ment, so model parameters cannot be tuned with supervision, and the reference set that defines normal behavior may itself contain the very anomalies it is supposed to reveal. We begin our study using frozen TabPFN features. Scoring each sam- ple by its distance to its nearest neighbors in feature space already gives strong results. We identify which layers to use and a feature-extraction procedure suited to the task. Next, to further improve performance, we use the reference set to fine- tune the model, so that the resulting features better separate normal samples from anomalies. On the ADBench benchmark, our fine-tuning free approach (ZEN) reaches a higher mean AUROC than every baseline, and our fine-tuned method (FOCUS) improves on it further. Our approach also generalizes across PFN models.

Mon 5 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Detecting unusual or abnormal entries in tables of data is harder than in images, partly because strong ways to represent such data are scarce. The authors use a special kind of neural network called prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) that have been trained on many datasets to create useful data features. They find that simply measuring how far a data point is from others in this feature space already helps find anomalies. By fine-tuning these networks without labels, they improve the detection further. Their methods outperform previous approaches on a standard benchmark for anomaly detection in tabular data.
Open → 2610.06693v1

Large language models struggle to detect hidden risks in smart contracts

The Deception Delta: Adversarial Evaluation of LLM-Based Smart Contract Bytecode Forensics

Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used in blockchain forensic investigations to interpret unverified smart contract bytecode. Their robustness has not been systematically tested against contracts adversarially designed to mislead analysis. We evaluate 22 frontier models on 13 purpose-built contracts (9 deception vectors, 4 controls) across six prompt strategies, yielding 8,528 analyzable non-refusal runs against contracts with EVM-verified ground truth. A calibrated LLM-as-judge pipeline, supported by two judge-independent metrics and 50 human gold-standard labels, shows that adversarial deception reduces drain detection by 20.0 percentage points (95% CI: [17.2, 22.8]) relative to functionally matched controls. Structural camouflage via multi-hop call chains, XOR-masked selectors, and storage-loaded drain parameters resists detection across nearly all models. Beyond non-detection, we identify rationalization: models correctly describe the hidden drain mechanism but accept the contract's deceptive framing and dismiss it as benign, yielding positive but incorrect evidence of safety. Simple guard instructions provide no aggregate benefit and destabilize individual models in both directions. Structural deception is largely insensitive across the six tested prompt strategies, more consistent with a capability limitation than with a simple prompting problem. Only five models from two providers exceed 50% detection. Under our single-shot, raw-bytecode-only protocol, current LLMs are not reliable standalone forensic tools. Our central claim does not extend to multi-turn, tool-augmented, source-aware, or decompiler-in-the-loop workflows; a source-code boundary check is reported as an explicit subset analysis rather than as part of the main evaluation.

Sat 12 SeptCryptography and Security
The gist
Smart contracts are computer programs that run on blockchains, but some are designed to hide harmful actions like stealing money. The authors tested 22 language models that analyze smart contract code and found many fail to spot these hidden dangers, even when given different instructions. Some models incorrectly say contracts are safe because they accept deceptive explanations, despite describing the risks. Overall, current language models are not reliable on their own for finding these hidden problems in smart contract code.
Open → 2609.14098v1