Targeting Borderline Fraudsters: Multi-View Hypergraph Fraud Detection with LLM-Guided Contrastive Learning
Rui Ou, Kun Zhu, Nana Zhang, Jiangtong Li, Chaochao Chen, Yuhua Xu, Changjun Jiang
Abstract
Graph fraud detection (GFD) on transaction networks is crucial for safeguarding financial systems. However, due to the limited perspective of existing graph neural networks (GNNs) in the single transaction view, sophisticated fraudsters can disguise themselves to exhibit weak fraud signals, appearing as borderline fraudsters. To address this challenge, we propose MH-LGC, a multi-view hypergraph fraud detection model with large language model (LLM) guided contrastive learning. MH-LGC tackles two key limitations of existing GNN-based GFD methods: (1) Due to the local aggregation mechanism, existing methods struggle to capture high-order trading patterns among distant fraudsters. MH-LGC introduces two temporal hyper-views as complements to the transaction view and employs a Temporal Hypergraph Attention Network (THAN) to integrate the three views. (2) Most GFD methods overlook the rich semantic cues embedded in transaction data. Although some general graph learning studies have explored LLM integration, the high computational overhead and task-specific fine-tuning make them impractical for GFD tasks. MH-LGC introduces a semantic view through a fine-tuning-free LLM-Guided Contrastive learning (LGC), adopting a novel paradigm for integrating GNN and LLM to reduce the computational overhead of LLM. Extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate that MH-LGC outperforms twelve state-of-the-art baselines, with AUC improvements ranging from 1.10% to 5.70%.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Builds on17
- Contrastive Learning with Hard Negative SamplesJoshua David Robinson, Ching-Yao Chuang, Suvrit Sra, Stefanie JegelkaICLR 2021 · 999 citations
- Inductive representation learning on temporal graphsDa Xu, Chuanwei Ruan, Evren Körpeoglu, Sushant Kumar et al.ICLR 2020 · 901 citations
- Pick and Choose: A GNN-based Imbalanced Learning Approach for Fraud DetectionYang Liu, Xiang Ao, Zidi Qin, Jianfeng Chi et al.WWW 2021 · 527 citations
- One For All: Towards Training One Graph Model For All Classification TasksHao Liu, Jiarui Feng, Lecheng Kong, Ningyue Liang et al.ICLR 2024 · 253 citations
- GraphGPT: Graph Instruction Tuning for Large Language ModelsJiabin Tang, Yuhao Yang, Wei Wei, Lei Shi et al.SIGIR 2024 · 182 citations
Related papers
- Can LLMs Find Fraudsters? Multi-level LLM Enhanced Graph Fraud DetectionTairan Huang, Yili Wang, Qiutong Li, Changlong He et al.ACM MM 2025 · 10 citations
- Dynamic Neighborhood Modeling via Node-Subgraph Contrastive Learning for Graph-Based Fraud DetectionZhizhi Yu, Chundong Liang, Xinglong Chang, Dongxiao He et al.AAAI 2025 · 7 citations
- DiG-In-GNN: Discriminative Feature Guided GNN-Based Fraud Detector against Inconsistencies in Multi-Relation Fraud GraphJinghui Zhang, Zhengjia Xu, Dingyang Lv, Zhan Shi et al.AAAI 2024 · 26 citations
- Heterophilic Graph Invariant Learning for Out-of-Distribution of Fraud DetectionLingfei Ren, Ruimin Hu, Zheng Wang, Yilin Xiao et al.ACM MM 2024 · 5 citations
- Revisiting Graph-Based Fraud Detection in Sight of Heterophily and SpectrumFan Xu, Nan Wang, Hao Wu, Xuezhi Wen et al.AAAI 2024 · 72 citations
