ArticlePloS one2024
Detecting anomalies in graph networks on digital markets.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study examines different graph-based methods of detecting anomalous activities on digital markets, proposing the most efficient way to increase market actors' protection and reduce information asymmetry. Anomalies are defined below as both bots and fraudulent users (who can be both bots and real people). Methods are compared against each other, and state-of-the-art results from the literature and a new algorithm is proposed. The goal is to find an efficient method suitable for threat detection, both in terms of predictive performance and computational efficiency. It should scale well and remain robust on the advancements of the newest technologies. The article utilized three publicly accessible graph-based datasets: one describing the Twitter social network (TwiBot-20) and two describing Bitcoin cryptocurrency markets (Bitcoin OTC and Bitcoin Alpha). In the former, an anomaly is defined as a bot, as opposed to a human user, whereas in the latter, an anomaly is a user who conducted a fraudulent transaction, which may (but does not have to) imply being a bot. The study proves that graph-based data is a better-performing predictor than text data. It compares different graph algorithms to extract feature sets for anomaly detection models. It states that methods based on nodes' statistics result in better model performance than state-of-the-art graph embeddings. They also yield a significant improvement in computational efficiency. This often means reducing the time by hours or enabling modeling on significantly larger graphs (usually not feasible in the case of embeddings). On that basis, the article proposes its own graph-based statistics algorithm. Furthermore, using embeddings requires two engineering choices: the type of embedding and its dimension. The research examines whether there are types of graph embeddings and dimensions that perform significantly better than others. The solution turned out to be dataset-specific and needed to be tailored on a case-by-case basis, adding even more engineering overhead to using embeddings (building a leaderboard of grid of embedding instances, where each of them takes hours to be generated). This, again, speaks in favor of the proposed algorithm based on nodes' statistics. The research proposes its own efficient algorithm, which makes this engineering overhead redundant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.