Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM67518
Volume:
10 |
9 |
Sep 2026
Pages:
1-9
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
School of Engineering and technology, dr shubhash University,juanagdh
Information Technology
School of Engineering and technology, dr shubhash University,juanagdh
Detecting and preventing financial fraud are driven by high-volume transaction streams, interdependent financial entities, massive data imbalance, rapidly changing fraud patterns, and the need for low-latency decisions with robust explanations. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the recent X-MHGNN literature (20 primary research + 5 review papers) publishing from 2021 to 2026, discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the previous works and identifying future research prospects. We first discuss the importance of the graph structure and GNN for fraud detection. Then we go through several representative graph learning and graph neural network (GNN) methods, multisource and multi-view learning, heterogeneous and temporal graph modelling, explainable artificial intelligence, temporal and streaming fraud detection, contrastive learning, dual-timescale learning, efficient graph transformers, and class-imbalance handling. We then conduct several systematic discussions and propose that the next-generation graph-based fraud detection methods should precisely model the multiple types of entities and temporal transaction relationships within the heterogeneous and temporal graphs, support multimodal evidence, leverage contrastive learning and efficient graph transformers, be able to provide low-latency, stable and explainable decisions in streaming-based environments, effectively handle the high data imbalance, and adapt to evolving fraud patterns. We finally point out the opportunities for the future X-MHGNN research, for example into the effectiveness of multimodality evidence in fraud detection, explainability evaluation metrics, and ablation studies of the different graph-based and explanation-based components. We conclude the paper with a discussion of future participants and directions.
KEYWORDS
This review looked at how financial fraud detection has changed. It started with machine learning and anomaly detection. Now it uses heterogeneous temporal, explainable and efficiency-aware graph learning. The literature shows useful abilities. Role-aware. Imbalance-aware sampling make graph fraud learning better. Heterogeneous graphs keep entity and relation types. Temporal GNNs show how interactions change over time. Graph transformers give representation and faster operation. Recent studies add counterfactual reasoning to financial fraud detection. The main observation is that these abilities are still split in the literature. This creates a chance to build a integrated X-MHGNN framework. That framework would mix evidence, heterogeneous temporal graph learning, explainability, imbalance handling, concept-drift adaptation and low-latency streaming inference. I think the proposed framework is a research idea until we test it in experiments. To prove its value we need baselines, component ablations, time-aware tests, explanation checks, robustness trials and full operation metrics.
[1] B. Xu, H. Shen, B. Sun, R. An, Q. Cao, and X. Cheng, “Towards Consumer Loan Fraud Detection: Graph Neural Networks with Role-Constrained Conditional Random Field,” AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i5.16582. [2] Y. Liu, X. Ao, Z. Qin, J. Chi, J. Feng, H. Yang, and Q. He, “Pick and Choose: A GNN-based Imbalanced Learning Approach for Fraud Detection,” Proceedings of the Web Conference, pp. 3168–3177, 2021. doi:10.1145/3442381.3449989. [3] R. D. R. Pereira and F. Murai, “How effective are Graph Neural Networks in Fraud Detection for Network Data?,” arXiv:2105.14568, 2021. [4] H. Kanezashi, T. Suzumura, X. Liu, and T. Hirofuchi, “Ethereum Fraud Detection with Heterogeneous Graph Neural Networks,” arXiv:2203.12363, 2022. [5] S. Xiang, M. Zhu, D. Cheng, E. Li, R. Zhao, Y. Ouyang, L. Chen, and Y. Zheng, “Semi-supervised Credit Card Fraud Detection via Attribute-Driven Graph Representation,” AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2023. [6] Y. Tian and G. Liu, “Transaction Fraud Detection via Spatial-Temporal-Aware Graph Transformer,” arXiv:2307.05121, 2023. [7] F. Shi and C. Zhao, “Enhancing financial fraud detection with hierarchical graph attention networks: A study on integrating local and extensive structural information,” Finance Research Letters, 2023. doi:10.1016/j.frl.2023.104458. [8] “Heterogeneous graph neural networks for fraud detection and explanation in supply chain finance,” Information Systems, vol. 121, 2024. [9] Y. Kim, Y. Lee, M. Choe, S. Oh, and Y. Lee, “Temporal Graph Networks for Graph Anomaly Detection in Financial Networks,” arXiv:2404.00060, 2024. [10] J. Lin, X. Guo, Y. Zhu, S. Mitchell, E. Altman, and J. Shun, “FraudGT: A Simple, Effective, and Efficient Graph Transformer for Financial Fraud Detection,” ICAIF, 2024.
Publication Date
9/28/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
10
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
21
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...