Enhancing Graph Neural Network-based Fraud Detectors against Camouflaged Fraudsters

Yingtong Dou, Zhiwei Liu, Li Sun, Yutong Deng, Hao Peng, Philip S. Yu

Main figure for Enhancing Graph Neural Network-based Fraud Detectors against Camouflaged Fraudsters

Abstract

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have been widely applied to fraud detection problems in recent years, revealing the suspiciousness of nodes by aggregating their neighborhood information via different relations. However, few prior works have noticed the camouflage behavior of fraudsters, which could hamper the performance of GNN-based fraud detectors during the aggregation process. In this paper, we introduce two types of camouflages based on recent empirical studies, i.e., the feature camouflage and the relation camouflage. Existing GNNs have not addressed these two camouflages, which results in their poor performance in fraud detection problems. Alternatively, we propose a new model named CAmouflage-REsistant GNN (CARE-GNN), to enhance the GNN aggregation process with three unique modules against camouflages. Concretely, we first devise a label-aware similarity measure to find informative neighboring nodes. Then, we leverage reinforcement learning (RL) to find the optimal amounts of neighbors to be selected. Finally, the selected neighbors across different relations are aggregated together. Comprehensive experiments on two real-world fraud datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the RL algorithm. The proposed CARE-GNN also outperforms state-of-the-art GNNs and GNN-based fraud detectors. We integrate all GNN-based fraud detectors as an opensource toolbox. The CARE-GNN code and datasets are available at.

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset Non-standard metric on 1 dataset

Tables show presented results in global context (best 3 papers + GCN + MLP).

Other Graph Benchmarks

Amazon2M

Global leaderboard →
Non-default metric. This paper reports AUC; the dataset default is Accuracy. Values below use AUC only.

Sorted by AUC. Highlighted rows are from other papers.

#ModelAUC ↑Paper
1
GFD
0.9757 ±0.0012
2
BWGNN
0.9742 ±0.0048
3
GDN
0.9709 ±0.0016
13
GraphSAGE
actual #13 vs paper #23 10 places worse
0.9316 ±0.0087
best reported
actual #13 vs paper #23 10 places worse
paper 0.7527
paper 0.7527 Δ today 0.1789
14
GAT
actual #14 vs paper #23 9 places worse
0.9130 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #23 9 places worse
paper 0.7516
paper 0.7516 Δ today 0.1614
15
GCN
actual #15 vs paper #23 8 places worse
0.9110 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #23 8 places worse
paper 0.7525
paper 0.7525 Δ today 0.1585
16
CARE-GNN
actual #16 vs paper #16
0.9067 ±0.0149
best reported
actual #16 vs paper #16
paper 0.8973

Difference within reported uncertainty; not counted as underperformance.

paper 0.8973 Δ today 0.0094
17
CARE-Att
0.8970
This paper
18
CARE-Weight
0.8969
This paper
19
CARE-Mean
0.8952
This paper
20
GraphConsis
0.8550
This paper
21
Player2Vec
0.7686
This paper
22
SemiGNN
0.7621
This paper
23
RGCN
0.7558
This paper
24
GeniePath
0.7265
This paper
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Global context (other papers) Best today — OK at publication; today's leaderboard best is elsewhere