GraphFAS: A Distributed System for Automated Graph Feature Generation and Selection in Industrial Transaction Networks

The consensus that GCN, GraphSAGE, GAT, and EvolveGCN outperform feature-only baselines on the Elliptic Bitcoin Dataset is widely cited but has not been rigorously stress-tested under a leakage-free evaluation protocol. We perform a seed-matched inductive-versus-transductive comparison and find that this consensus does not hold. Under a strictly inductive protocol, Random Forest on raw features achieves F1 = 0.821 and outperforms all evaluated GNNs, while GraphSAGE reaches F1 = 0.689 +/- 0.017. A paired controlled experiment reveals a 39.5-point F1 gap attributable to training-time exposure to test-period adjacency. Additionally, edge-shuffle ablations show that randomly wired graphs outperform the real transaction graph, indicating that the dataset's topology can be misleading under temporal distribution shift. Hybrid models combining GNN embeddings with raw features provide only marginal gains and remain substantially below feature-only baselines. We release code, checkpoints, and a strict-inductive protocol to enable reproducible, leakage-free evaluation.

Fraud detection systems must scale with rising transaction volume while remaining explainable and reviewable. We study a layered pipeline on the PaySim dataset that combines a gradient-boosted classifier, graph-derived structural features, an autoencoder-based anomaly signal, TreeSHAP explanations, and a bounded LLM investigation agent applied to cases the classifier scores uncertainly. Before any model comparison, we identify and remove a simulator-specific balance shortcut that would otherwise inflate baseline performance. After this correction, neither the graph features nor the anomaly signal improves Average Precision on the full test set. Both, however, rank fraud better within the subset of cases receiving intermediate baseline scores. In a controlled experiment with injected multi-account fraud rings, engineered structural features recover all injected test transactions, while the tabular baseline misses roughly a quarter of them. The investigation agent underperforms direct thresholding of the classifier it relies on, reaching 65.0% accuracy against 71.7% on a balanced 60-case sample, despite having access to model explanations, graph context, and retrieved reference cases. Of the eight decisions the agent changed, six replaced correct classifier outputs with errors, and it produced a coherent written rationale in each case. An exploratory disagreement-based escalation rule flagged two of these agent errors for human review without flagging any correct decision. We conclude that each component of a layered fraud system contributes only under specific conditions, and that a plausible rationale from an investigation agent is not evidence of a better decision.

Graph-based fraud detection is essential for safeguarding large-scale transaction systems, where undetected anomalies may lead to substantial financial losses and security risks. Real-world fraud graphs pose two coupled challenges: sparse and imbalanced supervision, where verified fraudulent labels are scarce and heavily skewed toward benign accounts, and representation dilution, where spatial message passing may oversmooth camouflaged anomalies while spectral filters may suppress fraud-relevant mid- and high-frequency irregularities. To address these challenges, we propose ADC-GNN, short for Attention-guided Diffusion-Contrastive Graph Neural Network, a unified framework that combines diffusion-guided feature augmentation, contrastive representation learning, and multi-hop spectral attention for few-shot graph fraud detection. The diffusion component is formulated as a feature-space denoising augmentation mechanism rather than a full topology-generative graph diffusion model: it constructs noise-perturbed node-feature views under a cosine schedule and uses contrastive learning to stabilize node representations across perturbations. The spectral attention module further adaptively emphasizes fraud-relevant hop-level and relation-level cues. We evaluate ADC-GNN primarily on three public benchmarks and additionally report a proprietary real-world telecom transaction dataset with approximately 60,000 records as a private case study. Under the 1% training setting, ADC-GNN achieves consistent improvements over original graph fraud baselines and four protocol-consistent recent graph anomaly/fraud baselines on the public benchmarks. Additional analyses on split stability, training ratios, oversampling alternatives, module-level ablations, diffusion schedules, and runtime and memory-consumption comparisons further characterize the effective operating regime of ADC-GNN.