Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 36 references

SCFCRC: Simultaneously Counteract Feature Camouflage and Relation Camouflage for Fraud Detection

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a Transformer-based fraud detector that filters feature camouflage and refines relation camouflage simultaneously outperforms prior state-of-the-art detectors on the YelpChi and Amazon benchmarks.

desk verdict Modest but consistent SOTA gains on two fraud benchmarks, with a real unexamined pseudo-label risk and a fixable novelty overclaim; worth peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12430 v1 pith:K7CRZRGL submitted 2025-01-21 cs.LG cs.AI

Xiaocheng Zhang , Zhuangzhuang Ye , GuoPing Zhao , Jianing Wang , Xiaohong Su This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords frauddetectiongraphneuralnetworksfeaturecamouflagerelationmixtureofexpertscontrastivelearninglabelpropagationtransformer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Fraudsters hide by mimicking benign user features and by linking to benign users. Most detectors handle only one of these camouflage modes, or learn features and relations separately. This paper proposes SCFCRC, a Transformer-based fraud detector that tackles both modes at once: a feature camouflage filter trained on structure-only pseudo-labels, plus a relation camouflage refiner that uses a mixture-of-experts to process each relation as a separate substructure. On the YelpChi and Amazon benchmarks, SCFCRC reports higher AUC, AP, and F1-macro than GAGA, the strongest prior method, with a 2.37% gain in F1-macro and a 3.34% gain in AP on YelpChi.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the pair of pseudo-label-driven components working in sequence. Label propagation, ignoring node features, assigns a pseudo-label to every node; these pseudo-labels train the feature camouflage filter and also partition neighbors into benign and fraud groups during label-guided group aggregation. The relation refiner's mixture-of-experts (a gating network that splits input among specialized sub-networks) divides the multi-relation graph into per-relation substructures, with a global expert that sees all relations, while a structure perceptron produces a prior assumption from mean neighbor cosine similarity under each relation and a manager is trained to match that prior via KL divergence. Regularized masking for MoE (RMMoE) randomly masks expert attention scores during training and renormalizes the remaining scores, with a KL constraint between masked and unmasked outputs, which the paper claims improves robustness and collaboration among experts.

What would settle it

Run SCFCRC on YelpChi with the label-propagation pseudo-labels replaced by random labels drawn from the same class proportion; if AUC, AP, and F1-macro stay close to the reported values, the pseudo-label pathway is not doing the work the paper claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SCFCRC's central claim is that feature and relation camouflage should be counteracted simultaneously, because each type of camouflage can reinforce the other. The feature filter uses label propagation over graph structure alone to generate pseudo-labels, trains an MLP-GNN on those pseudo-labels, and sharpens the filtered features with instance-wise and prototype-wise contrastive learning. The relation refiner groups neighbors by pseudo-label into benign and fraud groups, serializes the group vectors into a sequence, and passes the sequence through a Transformer encoder; a set of relation-specific experts plus a global expert each process different relation substructures, while a manager combines their outputs under a prior produced by a structure perceptron that scores neighbor similarity. A regularized masking scheme randomly zeroes some expert scores during training and renormalizes the rest, with a KL constraint between masked and unmasked outputs, which the paper argues prevents over-reliance on any single expert. The paper reports that on YelpChi SCFCRC improves F1-macro by 2.37%, AP by 3.34%, and AUC by 1% over GAGA, and on Amazon it reaches 0.9627 AUC, 0.8901 AP, and 0.9279 F1-macro.

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline leans on label propagation producing trustworthy pseudo-labels from graph structure alone; if the relations are themselves camouflaged, those pseudo-labels carry the error into both the feature filter and the group aggregation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SCFCRC is right, fraud detectors do not have to choose between feature camouflage and relation camouflage; a joint architecture can outperform decoupled ones.
  • The reported ablations imply that each component, including the two contrastive losses, the manager guidance, and the masking regularization, contributes to the gains on both datasets.
  • Because the expert structure is relation-agnostic, the same simultaneous-decamouflage design could be applied to other multi-relation graphs beyond review data.
  • The manager-based masking appears to prevent the 'imbalanced experts' failure, so future mixture-of-experts models in graph learning can adopt masked attention scores as a training regularizer.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves implicit that the pipeline's ceiling is set by how much signal graph structure alone carries; on graphs where the relations themselves are heavily compromised, label-propagation pseudo-labels could silently poison both the filter and the grouping.
  • A testable extension would be to replace the fixed KL prior from the structure perceptron with a learned homophily estimator, or to make the masking ratio adaptive per relation.
  • The same two-mode camouflage argument may transfer to other low-homophily graph tasks such as bot detection or malicious-account detection in social networks, though the paper does not claim this.
  • The reported gains over GAGA could partly come from the added Transformer capacity or the contrastive losses rather than from counteracting camouflage per se; a control that feeds unfiltered features into the refiner would isolate the decamouflage effect.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. SCFCRC is a Transformer-based fraud detector that combines a feature camouflage filter (label propagation pseudo-labels, an MLP/GNN backbone, and instance- and prototype-wise contrastive learning) with a relation camouflage refiner (label-guided group aggregation, learnable encodings, a mixture-of-experts module, a manager, and regularized masking). The paper evaluates on YelpChi and Amazon against GCN/GAT/HAN/GraphSAGE/GraphSAINT/Cluster-GCN/SIGN and fraud-specific baselines CARE-GNN, RioGNN, PC-GNN, FRAUDRE, H2-FDetector, GTAN, and GAGA. The main empirical claim is consistent gains over GAGA, e.g., 2.37%, 3.34%, and 1% improvement in F1-macro, AP, and AUC on YelpChi, with ablations and t-SNE visualizations supporting the contributions of the individual modules.

Significance. The proposed architecture is a substantial combination of existing ideas, and if the evaluation is clean, the reported gains are meaningful: they appear on two standard benchmarks with three metrics and several strong baselines. Strengths include a reasonable set of ablations, the manager-differentiation analysis in Figure 4, and the consistent direction of improvements across metrics. On the other hand, the central component (label propagation) is not validated, the masking-ratio hyperparameter appears to be selected using test-set curves, and the claimed novelty over MoE-based fraud detection is incorrect as stated. Because these issues concern the reliability of the headline numbers and the contribution statement, they need to be addressed before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Feature Camouflage Filter, Eqs. (3)-(6)] Label propagation is the sole source of pseudo-labels that supervise the GNN loss in Eq. (3), the contrastive losses in Eqs. (4)-(5), and the group construction in Eq. (6). However, label propagation is a homophily-based procedure, and the paper explicitly motivates the method by the fact that fraudsters break homophily; therefore, camouflaged nodes may receive systematically wrong pseudo-labels. The manuscript does not report label-propagation accuracy on YelpChi or Amazon, does not examine the sensitivity of downstream components to pseudo-label noise, and the ablations in Table 2 ('w/o FCF', 'w/o RCR') keep the label-propagation step fixed. I ask for (i) pseudo-label accuracy diagnostics on both datasets; (ii) an ablation replacing label-propagation pseudo-labels with, for example, oracle labels for the labeled set or feature-aware label propagation; and (iii) an explicit discussion of how errors in pseudo-labels propagate into Eq. (6). Without this, the central claim of simultaneously counteracting both camouflages is not fully established.
  2. [Effects of Regularized Masking for MoE, Figure 5] The masking ratio is an important hyperparameter, and the final configuration (0.15 on YelpChi, 0.1 on Amazon) is reported together with Figure 5, which plots F1, AP, and AUC against the masking ratio. The figure appears to use the test-set metrics; if the final masking ratio was chosen from this curve, the headline results are optimistically biased. Please state explicitly whether Figure 5 is computed on a validation split, and if not, re-select the masking ratio on validation and then evaluate on the test set.
  3. [Contributions, Abstract] The contribution statement 'To our best knowledge, this is the first time MoE has been used for fraud detection task' is contradicted by the manuscript's own reference [Liang et al. 2021], which applies multi-view-aware mixture-of-experts nets to credit-risk and limits forecasting, a fraud/risk detection setting. The novelty claim should be corrected or qualified, e.g., 'first to apply relation-wise MoE with regularized masking in graph fraud detection.' This is a factual error in a central contribution claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 2] The baseline row labeled 'GAN' does not match the listed baselines; the paper includes GCN in the baseline list, so this appears to be a typo that should be corrected to 'GCN'.
  2. [Eq. (5)] The denominator in Eq. (5) uses the temperature parameter tau rather than tau_PC used in the numerator; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Overall Detection Results; Relation Camouflage Refiner] The text uses 'homogeneity' where 'homophily' is intended, and 'relay on' should be 'rely on' in the sentence about traditional graph neural networks.
  4. [Ablation Study] The meanings of 'w/o FCF' and 'w/o RCR' in Table 2 are not defined. Please state which modules are removed in each case and whether hyperparameters are re-tuned for the ablated variants.
  5. [Experimental Setup] The code availability statement says the code will be available at Github but provides no URL. For a method with this many interacting hyperparameters, a public implementation is important for reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: pseudo-label feedback is an internal modeling loop, but the final prediction is trained and evaluated on ground-truth held-out labels, and no objective term equals the evaluation metric.

full rationale

SCFCRC's derivation chain is not circular under the stated criteria. The pseudo-labels are produced by label propagation over graph structure alone, per the paper: 'we perform label propagation on it, which ignores features and only considers the graph’s structure.' They are not defined in terms of the model's own outputs, and the final detection loss LD = sum_i (aM)_i HCE(p_i, y) (Eq. 18) plus the reported metrics (AUC, AP, F1-macro) are computed against ground-truth labels on held-out nodes. The internal loop—LP pseudo-labels training the Feature Camouflage Filter, filtered features feeding the structure perceptron, and manager attention weighting the experts—does not make any predicted quantity equal to an input by construction. No objective term is algebraically identical to the evaluation metric, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The acknowledged reliance on label propagation under relation camouflage is a correctness and robustness concern, not circularity. Citations to GAGA and other prior work are external to the author set, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work. Therefore no specific circular reduction can be exhibited, and the correct finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests mainly on a set of hand-chosen hyperparameters and three domain assumptions: pseudo-label quality, feature-similarity as a camouflage signal, and relation-specific camouflage structure. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • lambda1, lambda2 (loss weights for instance and prototype contrastive) = 0.1, 0.1
    Set by hand; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • lambda3, lambda4 (loss weights for manager guidance and RMMoE) = 0.1, 0.3
    Set by hand; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • beta (structure perceptron balance) = 0.5
    Chosen to balance original and filtered feature similarity in Eq. (12).
  • masking ratio for RMMoE = 0.15 (YelpChi), 0.1 (Amazon)
    Selected from the Figure 5 sweep; unclear if validation or test set was used.
  • delta (phase threshold for RMMoE) = 0.4
    Hand-chosen fraction of training before masking begins.
  • temperature tau (instance contrastive) = not specified
    Temperature parameter in Eq. (4); value omitted.
  • temperature tau_PC (prototype contrastive) = not specified
    Appears in Eq. (5) but is not defined.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Label propagation on graph structure alone yields sufficiently accurate pseudo-labels to train the feature filter.
    Used in the 'Feature Camouflage Filter' section; no error analysis of pseudo-labels is provided.
  • domain assumption Cosine feature similarity between a node and its neighbors is a valid signal for whether that relation substructure is camouflaged.
    Eq. (12), structure perceptron; this score guides the manager's attention allocation.
  • domain assumption Relation camouflage occurs only under a subset of relation types, so decomposing by relation and using separate experts is effective.
    Management Module, citing Zheng et al. 2017; no dataset-specific verification is given.
  • domain assumption The standard semi-supervised node classification setup with a fixed 0.4/0.1/0.5 split is representative of deployment conditions.
    Experiment settings; the split may differ from real fraud settings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of SCFCRC: Simultaneously Counteract Feature Camouflage and Relation Camouflage for Fraud Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K7CRZRGL

@misc{pith2026250112430,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: SCFCRC: Simultaneously Counteract Feature Camouflage and Relation Camouflage for Fraud Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K7CRZRGL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12430}
}
read the original abstract

In fraud detection, fraudsters often interact with many benign users, camouflaging their features or relations to hide themselves. Most existing work concentrates solely on either feature camouflage or relation camouflage, or decoupling feature learning and relation learning to avoid the two camouflage from affecting each other. However, this inadvertently neglects the valuable information derived from features or relations, which could mutually enhance their adversarial camouflage strategies. In response to this gap, we propose SCFCRC, a Transformer-based fraud detector that Simultaneously Counteract Feature Camouflage and Relation Camouflage. SCFCRC consists of two components: Feature Camouflage Filter and Relation Camouflage Refiner. The feature camouflage filter utilizes pseudo labels generated through label propagation to train the filter and uses contrastive learning that combines instance-wise and prototype-wise to improve the quality of features. The relation camouflage refiner uses Mixture-of-Experts(MoE) network to disassemble the multi-relations graph into multiple substructures and divide and conquer them to mitigate the degradation of detection performance caused by relation camouflage. Furthermore, we introduce a regularization method for MoE to enhance the robustness of the model. Extensive experiments on two fraud detection benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method outperforms state-of-the-art baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12430 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A toy example illustrating camouflaged fraud: (1) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of SCFCRC. For simplicity, the number of hops [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The t-SNE visualization of features on YelpChi. (Benign: blue, Fraud: red) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance with different masking ratio on both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Chen, T.; Kornblith, S.; Norouzi, M.; and Hinton, G. 2020. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on machine learning, 1597--1607. PMLR

    2020

  4. [4]

    Chiang, W.-L.; Liu, X.; Si, S.; Li, Y.; Bengio, S.; and Hsieh, C.-J. 2019. Cluster-gcn: An efficient algorithm for training deep and large graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, 257--266

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Dou, Y.; Liu, Z.; Sun, L.; Deng, Y.; Peng, H.; and Yu, P. S. 2020. Enhancing graph neural network-based fraud detectors against camouflaged fraudsters. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 315--324

    2020

  6. [6]

    Eigen, D.; Ranzato, M.; and Sutskever, I. 2013. Learning factored representations in a deep mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.4314

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Frasca, F.; Rossi, E.; Eynard, D.; Chamberlain, B.; Bronstein, M.; and Monti, F. 2020. Sign: Scalable inception graph neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.11198

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Ge, S.; Ma, G.; Xie, S.; and Philip, S. Y. 2018. Securing behavior-based opinion spam detection. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 112--117. IEEE

    work page 2018

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    Hamilton, W.; Ying, Z.; and Leskovec, J. 2017. Inductive representation learning on large graphs. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30

    2017

  2. [10]

    He, K.; Fan, H.; Wu, Y.; Xie, S.; and Girshick, R. 2020. Momentum contrast for unsupervised visual representation learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 9729--9738

    2020

  3. [11]

    A.; Beutel, A.; Shah, N.; Shin, K.; and Faloutsos, C

    Hooi, B.; Song, H. A.; Beutel, A.; Shah, N.; Shin, K.; and Faloutsos, C. 2016. Fraudar: Bounding graph fraud in the face of camouflage. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 895--904

    2016

  4. [12]

    A.; Jordan, M

    Jacobs, R. A.; Jordan, M. I.; Nowlan, S. J.; and Hinton, G. E. 1991. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1): 79--87

    1991

  5. [13]

    Kaghazgaran, P.; Caverlee, J.; and Squicciarini, A. 2018. Combating crowdsourced review manipulators: A neighborhood-based approach. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 306--314

    2018

  6. [14]

    N.; and Welling, M

    Kipf, T. N.; and Welling, M. 2016. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907

    2016 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Lepikhin, D.; Lee, H.; Xu, Y.; Chen, D.; Firat, O.; Huang, Y.; Krikun, M.; Shazeer, N.; and Chen, Z. 2020. Gshard: Scaling giant models with conditional computation and automatic sharding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.16668

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Li, A.; Qin, Z.; Liu, R.; Yang, Y.; and Li, D. 2019. Spam review detection with graph convolutional networks. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2703--2711

    2019

  9. [17]

    Liang, T.; Zeng, G.; Zhong, Q.; Chi, J.; Feng, J.; Ao, X.; and Tang, J. 2021. Credit risk and limits forecasting in e-commerce consumer lending service via multi-view-aware mixture-of-experts nets. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on web search and data ...

    2021

  10. [18]

    Liu, Y.; Ao, X.; Qin, Z.; Chi, J.; Feng, J.; Yang, H.; and He, Q. 2021. Pick and choose: a GNN-based imbalanced learning approach for fraud detection. In Proceedings of the web conference 2021, 3168--3177

    2021

  11. [19]

    S.; Deng, Y.; and Peng, H

    Liu, Z.; Dou, Y.; Yu, P. S.; Deng, Y.; and Peng, H. 2020. Alleviating the inconsistency problem of applying graph neural network to fraud detection. In Proceedings of the 43rd international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 1569--1572

    2020

  12. [20]

    J.; and Leskovec, J

    McAuley, J. J.; and Leskovec, J. 2013. From amateurs to connoisseurs: modeling the evolution of user expertise through online reviews. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web, 897--908

    2013

  13. [21]

    Meng, L.; Ren, Y.; and Zhang, J. 2023. Decoupling Graph Neural Network with Contrastive Learning for Fraud Detection. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications, 397--414. Springer

    2023

  14. [22]

    Peng, H.; Zhang, R.; Dou, Y.; Yang, R.; Zhang, J.; and Yu, P. S. 2021. Reinforced neighborhood selection guided multi-relational graph neural networks. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 40(4): 1--46

    2021

  15. [23]

    Rayana, S.; and Akoglu, L. 2015. Collective opinion spam detection: Bridging review networks and metadata. In Proceedings of the 21th acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, 985--994

    2015

  16. [24]

    Ren, Y.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, J.; Dai, P.; and Bo, L. 2021. Ensemfdet: An ensemble approach to fraud detection based on bipartite graph. In 2021 IEEE 37th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE), 2039--2044. IEEE

    2021

  17. [25]

    Shazeer, N.; Mirhoseini, A.; Maziarz, K.; Davis, A.; Le, Q.; Hinton, G.; and Dean, J. 2017. Outrageously large neural networks: The sparsely-gated mixture-of-experts layer. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.06538

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shi, F.; Cao, Y.; Shang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, C.; and Wu, J. 2022. H2-fdetector: A gnn-based fraud detector with homophilic and heterophilic connections. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022, 1486--1494

    2022

  19. [27]

    Van der Maaten, L.; and Hinton, G. 2008. Visualizing data using t-SNE. Journal of machine learning research, 9(11)

    2008

  20. [28]

    Velickovic, P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Lio, P.; Bengio, Y.; et al. 2017. Graph attention networks. stat, 1050(20): 10--48550

    2017

  21. [29]

    Wang, X.; Ji, H.; Shi, C.; Wang, B.; Ye, Y.; Cui, P.; and Yu, P. S. 2019. Heterogeneous graph attention network. In The world wide web conference, 2022--2032

    2019

  22. [30]

    Wang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Huang, Z.; Li, W.; Feng, S.; Ma, Z.; Sun, Y.; Yu, D.; Dong, F.; Jin, J.; et al. 2023. Label Information Enhanced Fraud Detection against Low Homophily in Graphs. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 406--416

    2023

  23. [31]

    Xiang, S.; Zhu, M.; Cheng, D.; Li, E.; Zhao, R.; Ouyang, Y.; Chen, L.; and Zheng, Y. 2023. Semi-supervised credit card fraud detection via attribute-driven graph representation. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 37, 14557--14565

    2023

  24. [32]

    Xue, F.; Shi, Z.; Wei, F.; Lou, Y.; Liu, Y.; and You, Y. 2022. Go wider instead of deeper. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 8779--8787

    2022

  25. [33]

    Zeng, H.; Zhou, H.; Srivastava, A.; Kannan, R.; and Prasanna, V. 2019. Graphsaint: Graph sampling based inductive learning method. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04931

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Zhang, G.; Wu, J.; Yang, J.; Beheshti, A.; Xue, S.; Zhou, C.; and Sheng, Q. Z. 2021. Fraudre: Fraud detection dual-resistant to graph inconsistency and imbalance. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 867--876. IEEE

    2021

  27. [35]

    Zheng, H.; Xue, M.; Lu, H.; Hao, S.; Zhu, H.; Liang, X.; and Ross, K. 2017. Smoke screener or straight shooter: Detecting elite sybil attacks in user-review social networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06916

    2017 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhou, Y.; Liu, X.; Zhou, K.; and Wu, J. 2022. Table-based fact verification with self-adaptive mixture of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.08753

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.