Deep Learning for Cross-Border Transaction Anomaly Detection in Anti-Money Laundering Systems

Qian Yu; Zhen Xu; Zong Ke

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Deep Learning for Cross-Border Transaction Anomaly Detection in Anti-Money Laundering Systems

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read CRNIM, a hybrid CNN-GRU model, reaches 97.1% accuracy and 0.94 AUROC on Elliptic, beating five baselines.

desk verdict The paper's central performance claim is unauditable because CRNIM is never specified, the Elliptic split is undefined, and the table is internally inconsistent; as written it deserves a desk reject, not referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07027 v1 pith:AELOTRIE submitted 2024-11-21 cs.LG cs.CYcs.SIq-fin.RM

Qian Yu , Zhen Xu , Zong Ke This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.CYcs.SIq-fin.RM

keywords UnsupervisedLearningCross-BorderTransactionsAnti-MoneyLaunderingRuleOptimizationDeepConvolutional-RecurrentNeuralIntegrationModelContrastiveEllipticDataset

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

The paper argues that unsupervised deep learning, trained with contrastive sample pairs, can make anti-money laundering systems detect anomalous cross-border transactions without relying on fixed expert rules. It compares five deep models on the public Elliptic bitcoin transaction dataset and reports that accuracy and AUROC rise steadily with architectural complexity. The proposed CRNIM model, a convolution-GRU hybrid, reaches 97.1% accuracy and 0.94 AUROC, the best in the comparison. If these numbers hold on a clean evaluation, the result suggests that hybrid spatial-temporal networks are a practical route toward adaptive, real-time AML monitoring.

What carries the argument

The central object is CRNIM (Convolutional-Recurrent Neural Integration Model), a hybrid network that combines convolutional layers for spatial feature extraction with a gated recurrent unit for temporal sequence modeling of transaction streams. It is trained with a contrastive loss that uses cosine similarity to pull feature representations of similar transactions together and push dissimilar ones apart, with a temperature parameter controlling sensitivity. A clustering stage, governed by a density parameter and a minimum-sample parameter, labels dense groups as normal and flags transactions that fall outside them as potentially abnormal; when the cluster structure shifts, the rule set is updated. This machinery carries the paper's claim because CRNIM's reported edge over the comparison models is attributed to the joint spatial-temporal representation produced by the CNN-GRU combination.

What would settle it

Re-run CRNIM on the Elliptic dataset with a fully documented split, for example training on unlabeled nodes from early time steps and testing only on labeled legal and illegal nodes from later time steps, then compare accuracy and AUROC to the paper's 97.1% and 0.94; if the gap to the simpler baselines shrinks or the numbers cannot be reproduced under the documented protocol, the central performance claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a contrastive-learning framework for unsupervised anomaly detection improves rule optimization in cross-border anti-money laundering, and that the authors' CRNIM model achieves the best reported performance on the Elliptic dataset: 97.1% accuracy and 0.94 AUROC. The paper reports a steady performance ladder across six configurations, from a simple two-layer CNN (82.5%, 0.71) through deeper and hybrid models up to CRNIM, and reads this ladder as evidence that as model complexity increases, so does the system's detection accuracy and responsiveness. The intended contribution is to show that unsupervised deep models can learn distinguishing transaction patterns, cluster new transactions against learned normal groups, and update detection rules automatically without manual labeling.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy and AUROC numbers assume that the unsupervised training stage never sees or leaks the labeled evaluation data, and that the metrics come from a held-out set of transactions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If CRNIM's reported numbers are reproduced, anti-money laundering systems can use an unsupervised CNN-GRU model to flag anomalous bitcoin transactions with higher accuracy than CNN-only, CNN-LSTM, or autoencoder baselines.
The reported monotone improvement from simple to hybrid architectures implies that for this detection task, additional model capacity and temporal layers translate directly into better separation of normal and abnormal transactions.
The contrastive clustering rule-update mechanism implies that AML rules can be revised automatically as new transaction data arrive, without waiting for confirmed cases.
Because most Elliptic nodes are unlabeled, the paper's results imply that the method tolerates the label scarcity typical of real AML settings.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension the paper leaves implicit is measuring per-transaction inference time, since the 'responsiveness' claim is supported only by accuracy and AUROC, not by timing data.
The same contrastive-clustering recipe could transfer to other transaction graphs, such as card payment networks or correspondent banking flows, because it requires only per-transaction feature vectors and a rule for forming contrastive pairs.
If the complexity-accuracy trend continues, replacing the GRU with a transformer encoder is a natural next experiment, though the paper does not test that step.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

This one is a desk reject in its current form, but not because the idea is silly. The paper claims a hybrid CNN-GRU model called CRNIM, trained with contrastive learning, reaches 97.1% accuracy and 0.94 AUROC on the Elliptic dataset and beats five baselines. The problem is that nobody can check that claim: there is no architecture specification for CRNIM, no contrastive loss equation (the equation is missing after "defined as follows"), no train/test split, no hyperparameters, no standard deviations, and no code. Table 1 has a column labeled "Auc" while the text calls it ACC. Elliptic has a standard temporal split convention (train on early time steps, test on later ones); the paper never says which split was used. If the unlabeled nodes used for contrastive training overlap the labeled evaluation nodes, the numbers could reflect memorization rather than generalization. So the central result is unverified, not necessarily wrong.

What is decent here: the authors chose Elliptic, a sensible public benchmark for unsupervised AML anomaly detection; they report AUROC, which is appropriate for imbalanced data; and they correctly note that rule-based AML systems need adaptation. Those are real choices. But the contribution is incremental — one more hybrid CNN-GRU variant, with no new loss, data, or theory. The "complexity improves accuracy" trend is expected and does not by itself support CRNIM specifically.

The methods section leans on references [13]–[15] for the "Generation Tree" algorithm and baselines; citing your own group is not disqualifying, but here those citations substitute for actual derivation and experimental setup. The mapping from Bitcoin transactions to "cross-border AML" is asserted, not validated. The paper ships no code, data, or formal proofs, so the evidence is just the unauditable table.

Who is this for? Maybe a practitioner who wants a quick pointer that contrastive learning is being tried for AML. But as a research paper, it needs at least: a full model description, the exact loss, the Elliptic split, hyperparameters, and either code or a reproduction-ready appendix. I would not send it to referees in this state. If the authors supply the missing protocol and code, it could become a minor workshop-level empirical note, but not a journal paper as is.

Recommendation: desk reject, with an invitation to resubmit a reproducible version.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CRNIM, a hybrid convolutional-recurrent neural model for unsupervised anomaly detection in cross-border transactions, and evaluates it on the Elliptic Bitcoin dataset against five baseline deep learning models. It reports that CRNIM achieves the best accuracy and AUROC (97.1% and 0.94, respectively) and claims that detection performance improves monotonically with model complexity. The method is framed around contrastive learning and dynamic rule optimization, but the manuscript lacks complete equations, architectural details, an experimental protocol, and reproducibility artifacts.

Significance. If the central claim were substantiated, an unsupervised hybrid CNN-GRU model with dynamic rule optimization could be a useful addition to AML anomaly detection, and the use of the public Elliptic dataset is an appropriate choice for such a study. However, the paper as submitted provides no way to audit the reported results: the model architecture is not specified, the contrastive loss and clustering rules are not fully defined, no train/test split or label-handling procedure is given, no hyperparameters or error bars are reported, and no code is released. The empirical superiority of CRNIM is therefore not established, and the claimed monotonic complexity-accuracy trend is presented as a conclusion rather than as a testable finding.

major comments (4)

[Section III-B and Table 1] The central performance claim (97.1% ACC and 0.94 AUROC for CRNIM) is unauditable because the paper never specifies how the Elliptic dataset is split into training and evaluation sets, whether the unlabeled nodes used for contrastive training are disjoint from the labeled nodes used for ACC/AUROC, or whether the split respects the 49 time steps of the Elliptic benchmark. Without this information, the reported numbers could result from label leakage or memorization rather than generalization, so the paper's main conclusion is not supported.
[Section II] The method section introduces a contrastive loss, a cosine similarity, a temperature parameter, clustering parameters (epsilon and MinPts), and a rule-update threshold, but the actual equations are missing from the text: the phrases 'the contrastive loss function is defined as follows' and similar passages are followed by blank spaces rather than formulas. No values or ranges for tau, epsilon, MinPts, or the update threshold are given, and the 'Generation Tree algorithm' is mentioned only through a citation to a UI-generation paper. The proposed method is therefore not reproducible and the role of its free parameters cannot be assessed.
[Table 1 and Section III-B] Table 1 is internally inconsistent: the first numeric column is headed 'Auc' while the text and Section III-B refer to it as ACC, and the second column is headed 'AUROC' with values on a 0-1 scale. The table shows only single point estimates with no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or number of independent runs, and no hyperparameters, training epochs, or learning rates are reported for any model. Consequently the claimed superiority of CRNIM over the five baselines is not statistically established.
[Section III-B] The abstract and conclusion claim that 'as model complexity increases, so does the system's detection accuracy and responsiveness,' but this claim is not supported by the experiments as reported. The five models differ in architecture, capacity, and training procedure simultaneously, so any observed trend could be due to any of these factors; without controlled ablations and uncertainty quantification, the monotonic trend is not a demonstrated result.

minor comments (5)

[Section II] The notation is incomplete: variables such as the transaction feature vector and the encoded representation appear as blank spaces in the text, making the equations unreadable even where they are present.
[Section III-A] The claim that the Elliptic dataset is 'useful for recognizing features of cross-border transactions' is asserted rather than demonstrated; the dataset labels Bitcoin entities as licit or illicit and does not provide cross-border fiat transaction metadata, so the connection to cross-border AML should be argued explicitly.
[Figure 2] The loss function drop graph is mentioned but not discussed in the text, and the figure lacks axis labels and a description of which model and training setup it corresponds to.
[References] Several references appear unrelated to the claims they support (for example, references [4], [10], [11], and [13] concern object detection, monetary policy, and UI generation), and they should be replaced with relevant AML or comparison-learning literature.
[Conclusion] The text contains typos such as 'face with' and 'and leakage. Reporting rate', which should be corrected to 'faced with' and 'leakage reporting rate'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's central claims are empirical table entries and descriptive summaries of its own experiments, not derivations from fitted inputs or self-cited theorems.

full rationale

The paper contains no derivation chain that could collapse into its inputs. Its central claim, that CRNIM achieves 97.1% ACC and 0.94 AUROC and outperforms five comparison models, is reported as an experimental result in Table 1, not as a quantity derived from a fitted parameter or from a self-cited uniqueness theorem. The monotonic 'complexity improves accuracy' statement is a descriptive reading of that same table, not an independently predicted outcome, so it cannot be circular. The method section references contrastive loss, clustering, and rule updates, but no equations are actually displayed and no fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The cited references are not authored by the present authors, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The paper's serious weaknesses are auditability problems, including an unspecified train/evaluation split, missing architecture details, no code, and a table that labels one column 'Auc' while the text calls it ACC. These concern reproducibility and correctness, not circularity. One internal oddity is that CRNIM is described in the conclusion with the same combining convolution and GRU architecture as the Hybrid CNN-GRU baseline, which makes the reported 1.5-point improvement hard to interpret. Even so, that is a consistency issue rather than a circular derivation. Therefore, the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several unspecified numerical parameters and on an asserted mapping between the Elliptic Bitcoin graph and cross-border banking transactions. The paper also introduces a named model, CRNIM, without specifying its architecture, so the reader cannot separate the model's contribution from the framework already cited.

free parameters (4)

Temperature parameter tau in contrastive loss
Mentioned in Section II as controlling contrastive loss sensitivity, but no value, search range, or fitting procedure is reported.
Clustering density parameter epsilon
Named in Section II as controlling clustering accuracy, but no value or estimation method is given.
Minimum sample number parameter MinPts
Named in Section II as controlling clustering sensitivity, but no value is provided.
Rule update threshold
Section II specifies that rules are updated when the difference between rule sets exceeds a preset threshold, but the threshold is never defined.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The Elliptic Bitcoin transaction graph is a valid proxy for cross-border money laundering activity.
Section III-A asserts that the dataset is useful for recognizing cross-border transaction features such as layering, but no evidence links blockchain graph structure to cross-border banking flows.
domain assumption Randomly selected feature-similar transaction pairs are valid positive samples for unsupervised contrastive learning.
Section II describes selecting positive samples by similarity in transaction frequency and amount, but this similarity is not grounded in laundering behavior or validated by the model.
domain assumption Accuracy and AUROC computed from ground-truth labels are valid despite a fully unsupervised training setup.
Section III-B evaluates using ACC and AUROC but never specifies how labeled evaluation nodes are separated from the unlabeled training pool or whether any label information enters training.

invented entities (1)

CRNIM (Convolutional-Recurrent Neural Integration Model)
purpose: Claimed superior anomaly detector combining CNN and GRU components for AML transaction screening.
No architecture diagram, layer configuration, parameter count, or ablation is provided. The name is the only specification, so there is no independent falsifiable handle outside the reported table.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep Learning for Cross-Border Transaction Anomaly Detection in Anti-Money Laundering Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AELOTRIE

@misc{pith2026241207027,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep Learning for Cross-Border Transaction Anomaly Detection in Anti-Money Laundering Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AELOTRIE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07027}
}

read the original abstract

In the context of globalization and the rapid expansion of the digital economy, anti-money laundering (AML) has become a crucial aspect of financial oversight, particularly in cross-border transactions. The rising complexity and scale of international financial flows necessitate more intelligent and adaptive AML systems to combat increasingly sophisticated money laundering techniques. This paper explores the application of unsupervised learning models in cross-border AML systems, focusing on rule optimization through contrastive learning techniques. Five deep learning models, ranging from basic convolutional neural networks (CNNs) to hybrid CNNGRU architectures, were designed and tested to assess their performance in detecting abnormal transactions. The results demonstrate that as model complexity increases, so does the system's detection accuracy and responsiveness. In particular, the self-developed hybrid Convolutional-Recurrent Neural Integration Model (CRNIM) model showed superior performance in terms of accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). These findings highlight the potential of unsupervised learning models to significantly improve the intelligence, flexibility, and real-time capabilities of AML systems. By optimizing detection rules and enhancing adaptability to emerging money laundering schemes, this research provides both theoretical and practical contributions to the advancement of AML technologies, which are essential for safeguarding the global financial system against illicit activities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Developing Cryptocurrency Trading Strategy Based on Autoencoder-CNN-GANs Algorithms
cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

A standard autoencoder-CNN-GAN stack is applied to Bitcoin futures price prediction, with reported accuracy and profits that the paper does not adequately support.
Optimizing Large Language Models with an Enhanced LoRA Fine-Tuning Algorithm for Efficiency and Robustness in NLP Tasks
cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

A modified LoRA update with per-matrix learning rates and an object-detection-style density term is reported to slightly improve QQP accuracy over GPT-4 baselines.
Dynamic Scheduling Strategies for Resource Optimization in Computing Environments
cs.DC 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

A weighted-sum container placement objective solved with a genetic algorithm is claimed to outperform static rules and heuristics on Google Cluster Data, but the comparison lacks methodology, baselines, and code.
Machine Learning Techniques for Pattern Recognition in High-Dimensional Data Mining
cs.LG 2024-12 reject novelty 2.0 of 10

An SVM-based frequent pattern mining method is claimed to outperform FP-Growth, FP-Tree, decision trees, and random forests, but the paper provides no reproducible experimental support.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[13]

Efficient and Aesthetic UI Design with a Deep Learning-Based Interface Generation Tree Algorithm,

S. Duan, R. Zhang, M. Chen, Z. Wang, and S. Wang, "Efficient and Aesthetic UI Design with a Deep Learning-Based Interface Generation Tree Algorithm," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17586, 2024

arXiv 2024
[15]

A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model for Enhancing Bond Default Risk Prediction

J. Yao, J. Wang, B. Wang, B. Liu, and M. Jiang, "A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model for Enhancing Bond Default Risk Prediction", Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 6, 2024

work page 2024
[1]

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Information Technology Strategies in Cross-Border Payment Systems,

H. Yi, "Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Information Technology Strategies in Cross-Border Payment Systems," Law and Economy, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 43-53, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

The power of data: Transforming compliance with anti- money laundering measures in domestic and cross-border payments,

A. G. Rozman, "The power of data: Transforming compliance with anti- money laundering measures in domestic and cross-border payments," Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 253-260, 2024

work page 2024
[3]

Improving client risk classification with machine learning to increase anti-money laundering detection efficiency,

E. J. Reite, J. Karlsen, and E. G. Westgaard, "Improving client risk classification with machine learning to increase anti-money laundering detection efficiency," Journal of Money Laundering Control, 2024

work page 2024
[4]

Transformers in Opinion Mining: Addressing Semantic Complexity and Model Challenges in NLP,

J. Du, Y. Jiang, S. Lyu, and Y. Liang, "Transformers in Opinion Mining: Addressing Semantic Complexity and Model Challenges in NLP," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 10, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

Self- Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks,

J. Wei, Y. Liu, X. Huang, X. Zhang, W. Liu, and X. Yan, "Self- Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17617, 2024

arXiv 2024
[6]

Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery: A New Frontier in Financial Crime Prevention,

K. Balaji, "Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery: A New Frontier in Financial Crime Prevention," Proceedings of the 2024 Second International Conference on Intelligent Cyber Physical Systems and Internet of Things (ICoICI), IEEE, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[7]

Anti-money laundering main techniques and tools: a review of the literature,

J. Castelao-López, D. Lagoa-Varela, and T. C. Santamaría, "Anti-money laundering main techniques and tools: a review of the literature," 2024

2024
[8]

Wasserstein Distance-Weighted Adversarial Network for Cross-Domain Credit Risk Assessment,

M. Jiang, J. Lin, H. Ouyang, J. Pan, S. Han, and B. Liu, "Wasserstein Distance-Weighted Adversarial Network for Cross-Domain Credit Risk Assessment," arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18544, 2024

2024 arXiv
[9]

Using artificial intelligence to counter money laundering and terrorist financing,

K. Cyrkun, et al., "Using artificial intelligence to counter money laundering and terrorist financing," Scientific Journal of Bielsko-Biala School of Finance and Law, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 101-106, 2024

2024
[10]

The Impact of Large Interest Rate Differentials between China and the US on the Role of Chinese Monetary Policy--Based on Data Model Analysis

J. Yao, "The Impact of Large Interest Rate Differentials between China and the US on the Role of Chinese Monetary Policy--Based on Data Model Analysis", Frontiers in Economics and Management, vol. 5, no. 8, pp. 243-251, 2024

2024
[11]

Optimizing YOLOv5s Object Detection through Knowledge Distillation Algorithm,

G. Huang, A. Shen, Y. Hu, J. Du, J. Hu, and Y. Liang, "Optimizing YOLOv5s Object Detection through Knowledge Distillation Algorithm," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12259, 2024

2024 arXiv
[12]

Transaction monitoring in anti-money laundering: A qualitative analysis and points of view from industry,

B. Oztas, et al., "Transaction monitoring in anti-money laundering: A qualitative analysis and points of view from industry," Future Generation Computer Systems, vol. 159, pp. 161-171, 2024

2024
[14]

Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for Advanced Data Mining

X. Yan, Y. Jiang, W. Liu, D. Yi, and J. Wei, "Transforming Multidimensional Time Series into Interpretable Event Sequences for Advanced Data Mining", arXiv preprint, arXiv:2409.14327, 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Enhancing Anti-Money Laundering Efforts with Network-Based Algorithms,

A. Bonato, J. S. Chavez Palan, and A. Szava, "Enhancing Anti-Money Laundering Efforts with Network-Based Algorithms," arXiv preprint, arXiv:2409.00823, 2024

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Efficient and Aesthetic UI Design with a Deep Learning-Based Interface Generation Tree Algorithm,

S. Duan, R. Zhang, M. Chen, Z. Wang, and S. Wang, "Efficient and Aesthetic UI Design with a Deep Learning-Based Interface Generation Tree Algorithm," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17586, 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [15]

A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model for Enhancing Bond Default Risk Prediction

J. Yao, J. Wang, B. Wang, B. Liu, and M. Jiang, "A Hybrid CNN-LSTM Model for Enhancing Bond Default Risk Prediction", Journal of Computer Technology and Software, vol. 3, no. 6, 2024

work page 2024

[3] [1]

Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Information Technology Strategies in Cross-Border Payment Systems,

H. Yi, "Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Information Technology Strategies in Cross-Border Payment Systems," Law and Economy, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 43-53, 2024

work page 2024

[4] [2]

The power of data: Transforming compliance with anti- money laundering measures in domestic and cross-border payments,

A. G. Rozman, "The power of data: Transforming compliance with anti- money laundering measures in domestic and cross-border payments," Journal of Payments Strategy & Systems, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 253-260, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [3]

Improving client risk classification with machine learning to increase anti-money laundering detection efficiency,

E. J. Reite, J. Karlsen, and E. G. Westgaard, "Improving client risk classification with machine learning to increase anti-money laundering detection efficiency," Journal of Money Laundering Control, 2024

work page 2024

[6] [4]

Transformers in Opinion Mining: Addressing Semantic Complexity and Model Challenges in NLP,

J. Du, Y. Jiang, S. Lyu, and Y. Liang, "Transformers in Opinion Mining: Addressing Semantic Complexity and Model Challenges in NLP," Transactions on Computational and Scientific Methods, vol. 4, no. 10, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [5]

Self- Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks,

J. Wei, Y. Liu, X. Huang, X. Zhang, W. Liu, and X. Yan, "Self- Supervised Graph Neural Networks for Enhanced Feature Extraction in Heterogeneous Information Networks," arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.17617, 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [6]

Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery: A New Frontier in Financial Crime Prevention,

K. Balaji, "Artificial Intelligence for Enhanced Anti-Money Laundering and Asset Recovery: A New Frontier in Financial Crime Prevention," Proceedings of the 2024 Second International Conference on Intelligent Cyber Physical Systems and Internet of Things (ICoICI), IEEE, 2024

work page 2024