Explainable Graph-Based Financial Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning and Data Analytics

Runali Suresh GhungrudStudent, Computer Science and Engineering, Shri Sai College of Engineering and Technology, DBATU University, Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, IndiaPunam Santosh WakulkarStudent, Computer Science and Engineering, Shri Sai College of Engineering and Technology, DBATU University, Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, IndiaPrachi Maroti NikhadeStudent, Computer Science and Engineering, Shri Sai College of Engineering and Technology, DBATU University, Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, IndiaPrem Bharat KhadeStudent, Computer Science and Engineering, Shri Sai College of Engineering and Technology, DBATU University, Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, IndiaSuraj S. BankarHead of Department & Assistant Professor, Computer Science and Engineering, Shri Sai College of Engineering and Technology, DBATU University, Bhadrawati, Chandrapur, Maharashtra, India

Vol 10 No 5 (2026): Volume 10, Issue 5, May 2026 | Pages: 40-46

International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology

OPEN ACCESS | Research Article | Published Date: 05-05-2026

doi Logo doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2026.105006

Abstract

Financial fraud constitutes one of the most economically destructive threats facing the global financial ecosystem, causing estimated annual losses exceeding USD 5.1 trillion across banking, insurance, e-commerce, and fintech sectors. Conventional rule-based fraud detection frameworks suffer from elevated false-positive rates, an inability to model complex relational transaction patterns across accounts and merchants, and complete opacity in their decision rationale — rendering regulatory compliance and analyst trust difficult to sustain. This paper presents XGFFD (Explainable Graph-Based Financial Fraud Detection), a unified system integrating Graph Attention Networks (GAT) and Graph Convolutional Networks (GCN) with an XGBoost-led ensemble classifier comprising LightGBM and Random Forest to detect fraudulent transactions by modelling financial entities as heterogeneous graphs. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) and GNNExplainer are incorporated for post-hoc model interpretability, producing human-readable feature attribution and subgraph visualisation for every fraud prediction. Evaluated on the IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection dataset and a synthetic heterogeneous transaction graph with 2.1 million nodes and 8.7 million edges, XGFFD achieved an F1-score of 0.9312, a Precision-Recall AUC of 0.9478, and a Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of 0.8941, surpassing all tabular and graph-only baselines. The explainability layer reduced analyst investigation time by 63%, and the system sustained 12,000 transactions per second on a four-GPU cluster, confirming production-grade viability.

Keywords

Financial Fraud Detection; Graph Neural Networks; Graph Attention Network (GAT); Graph Convolutional Network (GCN); XGBoost; SHAP Explainability; GNNExplainer; Heterogeneous Transaction Graph; Machine Learning; Data Analytics; Anomaly Detection; Federated Learning; IEEE-CIS Dataset; Class Imbalance


Citation of this Article

Runali Suresh Ghungrud, Punam Santosh Wakulkar, Prachi Maroti Nikhade, Prem Bharat Khade, & Suraj S. Bankar. (2026). Explainable Graph-Based Financial Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning and Data Analytics. International Research Journal of Innovations in Engineering and Technology - IRJIET, 10(5), 40-46. Article DOI https://doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2026.105006

References
  1. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), “Report to the Nations: 2022 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse,” ACFE, Austin, TX, 2022.
  2. C. Phua, V. Lee, K. Smith, and R. Gayler, “A comprehensive survey of data mining-based fraud detection research,” arXiv:1009.6119, 2010.
  3. A.Dal Pozzolo, O. Caelen, R. A. Johnson, and G. Bontempi, “Calibrating probability with undersampling for unbalanced classification,” in Proc. IEEE SSCI, 2015, pp. 1–8.
  4. Z. Liu, C. Dou, J. Yu, Q. Hu, and L. Sun, “Alleviating the inconsistency problem of applying graph neural network to fraud detection,” in Proc. ACM SIGIR, 2020, pp. 1569–1572.
  5. European Parliament, “General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), Article 22: Automated Individual Decision-Making,” Official Journal of the European Union, 2016.
  6. Y. Kou, C.-T. Lu, S. Sirwongwattana, and Y.-P. Huang, “Survey of fraud detection techniques,” in Proc. IEEE ICNSC, 2004, pp. 749–754.
  7. A.Dal Pozzolo, G. Boracchi, O. Caelen, C. Alippi, and G. Bontempi, “Credit card fraud detection: A realistic modeling and a novel learning strategy,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 3784–3797, 2018.
  8. E. Loginova, W. Tran, C. van der Poel, and G. Boracchi, “Towards learning to detect and predict customer churn in bank transactions,” arXiv:2106.08536, 2021.
  9. T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system,” in Proc. ACM KDD, 2016, pp. 785–794.
  10. G. Liu et al., “Gем: Graph embedding with attention mechanism for opinion fraud detection,” in Proc. ACM SIGIR, 2018, pp. 105–114.
  11. X. Zhang, Y. Liu, L. Li, Q. Hu, S. Pan, and C.-C. Chang, “CARE-GNN: Camouflage-resistant graph neural network for social influence manipulation detection,” arXiv:2008.08982, 2020.
  12. Y. Dou, Z. Liu, L. Sun, Y. Deng, H. Peng, and P. S. Yu, “Enhancing graph neural network-based fraud detection via balanced and uniform neighbourhood aggregation,” in Proc. AAAI, 2020.
  13. S. M. Lundberg and S.-I. Lee, “A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2017, pp. 4765–4774.
  14. R. Ying, D. Bourgeois, J. You, M. Zitnik, and J. Leskovec, “GNNExplainer: Generating explanations for graph neural networks,” in Proc. NeurIPS, 2019, pp. 9240–9251.
  15. F. K. Alarfaj et al., “Credit card fraud detection using state-of-the-art machine learning and deep learning algorithms,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 39700–39715, 2022.
  16. J. Davis and M. Goadrich, “The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves,” in Proc. ICML, 2006, pp. 233–240.