Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Adaptive graph fraud detectors must decide both when to update and how strongly to trust an updated model. This study isolates those decisions through a fully reproducible synthetic temporal-transaction benchmark. Following the ATGNN-SP design, we implement directed two-hop simplified graph propagation, a frozen stable model, an incrementally updated plastic model, a validation-calibrated loss gate, and anchor replay. We extend the fixed stable–plastic mixture with a delayed-label exponential expert-weighting rule. Across five seeds and 15 future snapshots, the adaptive mixture attains average precision 0.4170 and F1 0.4021, versus 0.3469 and 0.3189 for a fixed mixture; however, it updates on all 15 snapshots, compared with 7.8 for the fixed mixture. Plastic-only adaptation is competitive (AP 0.4163; F1 0.3965), showing that retaining a frozen predictor in the final score need not always improve outcomes. All results are computed from a synthetic generator with deliberately changing label and connectivity mechanisms; they should be interpreted as a controlled stress test, not empirical validation on banking or cryptocurrency transactions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Phillips et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: