Anomaly synthesis and detection in accounting data via a generative adversarial network


Abstract

To address the challenge of anomaly detection in high-dimensional, heterogeneous accounting data, we propose MF-GAN, a multimodal fusion framework that integrates synthesis and detection within a unified architecture. MF-GAN employs a dual-branch spatio-temporal generator: a temporal branch with regional residual learning to extract sequence dynamics, and a spatial branch based on convolutional networks to capture unstructured features from voucher images and associated text. A generative sample-augmentation mechanism—combining bootstrap resampling with noise injection—produces realistic anomalous samples, improving recall of rare anomaly types by 18.6% on a corpus of 180,000 real accounting records and the EAAD dataset containing 3,200 labeled anomalies, thereby mitigating severe class imbalance. We further introduce a dynamic-weight joint optimization scheme that unifies generator and discriminator losses for collaborative training; ablating this component reduces performance by 21.4%, underscoring the importance of gradient co-training for generalization in unsupervised settings. Experimental results show that MF-GAN achieves 78.48% precision, 96.67% recall, and a 19% F1 improvement over mainstream baselines on EAAD. On the CBFAD dataset, MF-GAN attains 76.48% precision, 86.67% recall, and an 86.05% F1 score. The framework overcomes feature-extraction bottlenecks in high-dimensional time series and, through generative–discriminative co-optimization, provides an interpretable and practical pathway for financial anti-fraud supervision.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].