ICLR 2024

Partitioning Message Passing for Graph Fraud Detection

Wei Zhuo, Zemin Liu, Bryan Hooi, Bingsheng He, Guang Tan, Rizal Fathony, Jia Chen

Main figure for Partitioning Message Passing for Graph Fraud Detection

Abstract

Label imbalance and homophily-heterophily mixture are the fundamental problems encountered when applying Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) to Graph Fraud Detection (GFD) tasks. Existing GNN-based GFD models are designed to augment graph structure to accommodate the inductive bias of GNNs towards homophily, by excluding heterophilic neighbors during message passing. In our work, we argue that the key to applying GNNs for GFD is not to exclude but to distinguish neighbors with different labels. Grounded in this perspective, we introduce Partitioning Message Passing (PMP), an intuitive yet effective message passing paradigm expressly crafted for GFD. Specifically, in the neighbor aggregation stage of PMP, neighbors with different classes are aggregated with distinct node-specific aggregation functions. By this means, the center node can adaptively adjust the information aggregated from its heterophilic and homophilic neighbors, thus avoiding the model gradient being dominated by benign nodes which occupy the majority of the population. We theoretically establish a connection between the spatial formulation of PMP and spectral analysis to characterize that PMP operates an adaptive node-specific spectral graph filter, which demonstrates the capability of PMP to handle heterophily-homophily mixed graphs. Extensive experimental results show that PMP can significantly boost the performance on GFD tasks. Our code is available at.

Proposed method: GFD

Benchmark Results

Tested on 1 dataset 2 baseline values reported too low 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
This paper
2
BWGNN
0.9742 ±0.0048
This paper
3
GDN
0.9709 ±0.0016
This paper
4
GHRN
0.9707 ±0.0073
This paper
7
H2-FDetector
0.9603 ±0.0069
This paper
8
PC-GNN
0.9586 ±0.0014
This paper
9
FAGCN
0.9500 ±0.0081
This paper
11
GPRGNN
0.9372 ±0.0068
This paper
13
GraphSAGE
actual #13 vs paper #13
0.9316 ±0.0087
actual #13 vs paper #13
paper 0.9316 ±0.0087
paper 0.9316 ±0.0087 Δ at pub 0.0276
14
GAT
actual #14 vs paper #20 6 places worse
0.9130 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #14 vs paper #20 6 places worse
paper 0.8102 ±0.0179
paper 0.8102 ±0.0179 Δ at pub 0.1028
15
GCN
actual #15 vs paper #20 5 places worse
0.9110 ±0.0060
best reported
actual #15 vs paper #20 5 places worse
paper 0.8369 ±0.0125
paper 0.8369 ±0.0125 Δ at pub 0.0741
16
CARE-GNN
actual #16 vs paper #16
0.9067 ±0.0149
actual #16 vs paper #16
paper 0.9067 ±0.0149

Improvement within reported uncertainty; not highlighted.

paper 0.9067 ±0.0149 Δ at pub 0.0094
SOTA performance (not significantly different from the best) Proposed method (this paper) Baseline / comparison (this paper) Best at pub — reported result worse than the best known when published (best reported in green) Best at pub — reported value improved over the best known when published