Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing (2022) 13:4663–4679

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-03512-2

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model:

the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud detection and fraud classification
as an instance
Jia‑Wei Chang1 · Neil Yen2,3 · Jason C. Hung1

Received: 30 December 2020 / Accepted: 9 September 2021 / Published online: 21 March 2022
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Advanced technologies, Internet of things and fundamental information communication technology frameworks in particular,
facilitate information sharing. One simple click-on end device can make every tool accessible to users; however, whether cor-
rect information is received remains to be an open question. Incorrect information that bundles the factors of fake, malicious,
or fraudulent information, whether deliberately or not, may worsen misunderstandings. To avoid these cases escalating to the
level of crime, a universal financial fraud-awareness model was designed in this study. The model first targets accurate fraud
detection and classification using the natural language processing technique. An anti-fraud chatbot is then implemented as
an instance of the model and deployed on a widely used social network service, namely LINE. This implementation aims
to manage finance-fraud cases and provide anti-fraud suggestions to deal with foreseeable fraud events. Statistics of the
comparison between Word2vec, ELMO, BERT, and DistilBERT on the five-strong conventional machine-learning models
and the models of artificial neural networks indicate that the proposed model can achieve an accuracy of over 98% while
detecting potential finance-fraud cases. In addition, the more efficient models by DistilBERT with a support vector machine
or a random forest have lower resource-computation cost and faster execution time in real applications.

Keywords Natural language processing · Fraud detection · Fraud classification · Context awareness · Machine learning ·
Smart city service

1 Introduction and specific classification of fraudulent events to provide

With the proliferation of mobile devices and social media,
people have a large number of channels to receive informa-
tion; likewise, criminals and criminal syndicates gain ille-
gal profits through anonymity, forgery, and untraceability.
Technologies such as spam, intrusion detection systems,
computer viruses, malware detection, and spoofing are
important for real-time determination of malicious messages
* Neil Yen
neil219@gmail.com
1 by state media, China experienced over 590,000 fraudulent
Department of Computer Science and Information
Engineering, National Taichung University of Science
and Technology, Taichung City, Taiwan
2
School of Computer Science and Information Security,
Guilin University of Electronic Technology, Guilin, China
3
School of Computer Science and Engineering, University
of Aizu, Aizuwakamatsu, Japan
information for decision analysis and operational actions
performed by users in different roles.
Statistics from 2019 indicate that cybercrime resulted in
financial losses of $3.5 billion, with spoofing fraud causing
losses of approximately $300 million (Federal Bureau of
Investigation 2020) and credit card fraud, where the pop-
ularity of electronic transactions has increased new fraud
opportunities, costing companies and individuals millions of
dollars (Adewumi and Akinyelu 2017). Internet and financial
fraud have also caused serious financial losses and crime
in Taiwan, swamping the society with problems and crises.
According to the Public Security Ministry statistics cited
incidents and losses of approximately $3.4 billion in 2015
(Martina and Wu 2016). Therefore, it is very important to
prevent the ever-changing financial frauds and raise public
awareness regarding protection. Chen et al. (2017) reported
that common malicious social engineering, including fake
claims, credit card transactions, online purchases, and

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
4664
mobile payments, often occurs on smartphones. To be effec-
tive and instantaneous, it is necessary to use a smartphone to
ensure that fraudsters are aware of fraud. To detect financial
fraud in social networks effectively and in real time, data-
analytics techniques are important, and they can be divided
into two categories: statistical-based methods and machine
learning-based techniques.
A large amount of resources worldwide, in any form, have
been utilized to prevent financial fraud. For instance, Taiwan
has developed a number of systems to support the public’s
identification of fake news and incorrect information. Exam-
ples such as Cofacts,1 MyGoPen,2 and 165 National Fraud
Prevention Networks3 can be easily observed. In addition,
people make real-time inquiries, such as Auntie Mei Yu,4
and use them. However, most systems focus only on fake
messages or fake news and rely on manual queries or corre-
lations with known events in the past as a method to identify
whether they are fake or not. However, this approach leads
to poor efficiency of queries and can only prevent the same
case techniques as in the past. Once the criminals change
presentation styles, such as methods of expression and talk-
ing skills, the experiences learned from past studies may not
fit well and help solve the issues (Chen et al. 2017). Open
issues were left unsolved; these include the following:
• Accuracy and impartiality on the fraud information
from limited sources are yet to be resolved. A convinc-
ing mechanism to automatically judge the known frauds
is still pending for development, which may lead to more
unexpected fraud in the gray zone.
• Fraud awareness is low as only a passive search on static
information service is provided. Active push notifications
are expected in the correct situation.
• Imbalanced requirements on information security (for
fraud prevention) and user experience (for purposes of
simplicity) still exist, leading to the continuation of fraud
cases.
Therefore, this study focused on preventing financial-
related fraud and developing models to identify known fraud
and processes to respond to new forms of fraud. A chatbot,
implemented on a social network service named LINE, was
then used to passively provide user inquiries and feedback
on anti-fraud recommendations. Two main issues were tar-
geted in this study: (1) designing a universal model to form
fraud patterns and perform detection, and (2) implementing
1
https://​cofac​ts.​g0v.​tw/.
2
https://​www.​mygop​en.​com/.
3
https://​165.​npa.​gov.​tw/.
4
https://​www.​check​check.​me/.
13
J.-W. Chang et al.
a chatbot to actively support specific users who are not aware
of foreseeable fraud events in certain scenarios.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
summarizes the previous works related to this study; Sect. 3
presents the proposed method and its implementation;
Sect. 4 discusses the experimental design and the obtained
results; and Sect. 5 provides a conclusion and reports on the
potential research directions in the field.
2 Related work
The idea of word-to-vector (Word2vec) was first proposed by
Mikolov et al. (2013). Word2vec is a type of unsupervised
learning that follows the distributional hypothesis and is the
first well-known approach of word embedding using deep
neural networks. The core concept is that a target word is
typically related to its adjacent words; this may be regarded
as the words having similar semantic distances. Word2vec
can be trained by Continuous Bad of Words (CBOW) and
Skip-gram modes; (1) CBOW predicts the current word
using the previous and subsequent words, and (2) Skip-gram
is used to predict the previous and subsequent words using
the current word.
Previous approaches have proved that Word2vec out-
performs traditional textual representations. For example,
Lilleberg et al. (2015) claimed that text classification is
widely regarded as a supervised learning task and defined
the identification of new text categories based on a train-
ing model of tagged text. As the number of available text
messages increases, it becomes more difficult to classify
them correctly. However, traditional textual representations
(e.g., term frequency inverse document frequency or TF-
IDF) ignore semantics and word order, which may be detri-
mental to subsequent classification efforts. They proposed
a weighted TF-IDF with Word2vec to generate semantic
features. The support vector machine (SVM) model with
the proposed semantic features achieved an accuracy rate of
89.72%, which is better than that of the traditional TF-IDF
(89.45%) with only stop words. In addition, Wensen et al.
(2016) combined Wikipedia and Word2vec to solve the spar-
sity problem of short textbook classifications. The results
showed that the average precision, recall, and F1 score were
78% without Word2vec extension but increased to 80% with
text extension. All the three measures of Word2vec are bet-
ter than those of the traditional statistics-based Wikipedia
link-based measure (WLM).
Following the idea of Word2vec, embedding from
language model (ELMO) was proposed by Peters et al.
(2018). ELMO addresses the problem of Word2vec. In dif-
ferent contexts, Word2vec returns the same vector repre-
sentation to the target word, but the target word may have
different meanings in different contexts. Therefore, ELMO
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud…
can input the entire text into the model once, and the
model infers the semantic vector of the target word for the
corresponding context. Previous studies prove that ELMO
has considerable potential for textual representation. For
example, Ling et al. (2020) proposed a new hybrid neural
network model to classify microblog posts into negative
or positive sentiments. Their model first designs an input
layer using the semantic vector from a pre-trained ELMO
model and POS, N-Gram, and emoticon features, followed
by long short-term memory (LSTM) and convolutional
neural network (CNN) to extract the textual representation,
and finally, a fully connected layer is used to predict the
sentiment. The experiment was evaluated using a manually
marked dataset, and the best results obtained were 85.69,
86.33, and 86.71% for precision, recall, and F1 scores,
respectively. In addition, Sun et al. (2019) proposed a deep
context stacking model (DS-LSTM), which uses ELMO to
effectively generate features for the input sentences and
then uses a keyword attention mechanism to determine the
word weights. The experimental results show that double
stacked long short-term memory (DS-LSTM) with ELMO
achieved the best F1-score (69.44%) on the CHEMPROT
database, proving that ELMO can provide very rich con-
textual information. Compared to ELMO and previous
word embedding models, bidirectional encoder represen-
tations from transformers (BERT) were proposed to solve
the issues of longer-distance dependency relationships and
comprehensive contextual information through the masked
language model (Devlin et al. 2018).
The BERT model has been widely used in recent years
and has been shown to be a state-of-the-art model for the
downstream tasks of natural language processing (NLP). For
example, Aggarwal et al. (2020) proposed a binary classifi-
cation model based on BERT for fake-news recognition. The
experimental results show that the BERT model achieves the
best accuracy (97.021%) on the NewsFN dataset. In addition,
Rexha et al. (2020) proposed a BERT-based classification
model for many small datasets including customer reviews
(CR), MPQA, short movie reviews (Rt10k), and subjectiv-
ity (Subj). Compared to multinomial naïve Bayes (MNB),
naïve Bayes SVM (NBSVM), and recursive auto-encoder
(RAE), the experimental results show that the BERT-based
model achieved improvements of approximately 5% on accu-
racy for MPQA and Subj and approximately 10% on CR
and Rt10k datasets. Howerver, the BERT model has nearly
100 million parameters and the training time is too long, its
optimization is required for lower computing resources. As
an improvement of the BERT model, DistilBERT applies
knowledge distillation to achieve a small model classifica-
tion and achieves an accuracy similar to that of BERT (Sanh
et al. 2019). The architecture of DistilBERT is similar to that
of BERT but only requires 40% or fewer parameters and 50%
or fewer hidden layers. The results show that DistilBERT
4665
achieves 60% faster processing speed while retaining 97%
of the performance, compared to those of BERT.
From the perspective of finance-fraud prevention using
NLP, several instances have been found as follows. Hajek
and Henriques (2017) mentioned that financial statement
fraud has always been a concern for investors and the gov-
ernment. Fraudulent commentary in financial statements has
been observed in recent studies, and it is desirable to develop
a financial fraud detection system. The experimental process
starts by assembling a dataset of nine financial variables that
can identify financial irregularities and an MD&A textual
dashboard from the manager's perspective, followed by a
correlation-based feature selection method and a BestFirst
search method to reduce the dimensionality, and finally,
fourteen learning methods for fraud classification; the high-
est accuracy (90.32%) was obtained by the Bayesian belief
network, while the lowest accuracies were obtained by logi-
cal regression and Navier Bayesian. The study conducted by
Jurgovsky et al. (2018) mentions that credit card fraud has
become a major challenge for financial institutions because
of the popularity of electronic payments; thus, fraudulent
transactions are regarded as anomalous purchase behaviors,
and the fraud detection problem is treated as a serial classifi-
cation task. To better distinguish between the two, LSTM is
used to model the dynamic transformation between transac-
tions to recover the sequential structure of customer transac-
tion history and traditional feature integration engineering to
identify cardholder purchase activity. The experiment uses
two months of credit card transaction records, and experts
mark whether the transactions are fraudulent or not. The
experimental evaluation was based on the area under curve
(AUC) below the Precision-Recall (PR) curves. Random
Forest and LSTM obtained 0.242 and 0.236, respectively,
for face-to-face transactions, and 0.404 and 0.402 for e-com-
merce. LSTM can improve the detection accuracy of offline
transactions for cardholders' purchases in stores, but it is
not better than random forest for online transactions. LSTM
can improve the detection accuracy of offline transactions
for cardholders' purchases in stores, but it is not better than
random forest for online transactions. Therefore, this study
considers the above-mentioned issues and concentrates on
the design of a fraud-awareness model to support the spread
of frauds through social network services. In addition to the
previous cases, the focus is on the Chinese terms.
3 Design of finance fraud‑awareness model
and anti‑fraud chatbot
This study focused on two major parts; finance fraud-
awareness model and Rasa chatbot module. The relationship
between them, as well as the system scenario, is illustrated
in Fig. 1. Bocklisch et al. (2017) developed an open-source
13
4666
Fig. 1  Framework of anti-fraud
chatbot
Fig. 2  Use case of interaction
with anti-fraud chatbot
natural language dialog framework for building contextual
dialogs, namely Rasa. Rasa NLU and Rasa core are the two
main components of Rasa. Rasa NLU is responsible for
understanding the semantic message of a sentence, and Rasa
Core is responsible for the task and strategy of the conversa-
tion. Therefore, customized functions can be developed and
integrated into the open-source framework.
In this study, a finance fraud-awareness model was inte-
grated into Rasa chatbot, and the model can be divided into
two components: fraud detection and fraud classification.
The first component is fraud detection, which classifies the
user’s query as legal, illegal, or pending confirmation. In
terms of use case, the user should input a query to Rasa NLU
through the chatbot, as shown in Fig. 2. Rasa NLU parses the
text and passes it to the fraud-detection model to determine
its intent. If there is not enough information, the chatbot will
conduct an instructional conversation with the user to collect
the required information. If the intention is legal, the chatbot
13
J.-W. Chang et al.
replies to a legitimate situation. If the intent is illegal, the
second component, fraud classification, classifies the query
into seven known illegal events and provides a correspond-
ing solution. If the intent is pending confirmation, the chat-
bot notifies the user that the event cannot be confirmed and
will send further messages after human confirmation.
3.1 Model settings of fraud detection/classification
In this study, fraud detection and classification models have
the same architecture, but the outputs of the two models are
different. The flowchart of fraud detection and fraud clas-
sification is shown in Fig. 3, which can be divided into four
steps:
Step 1. For the fraud-detection model, we defined three
scenarios—legitimate, illegitimate, and pending confir-
mation—as the output; under the illegitimate scenario,
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud…
Fig. 3  Flowchart for the training of fraud detection and classification models
Table 1  A sample list of Chinese Stop words
Chinese stop words
$、0、1、2、3、4、5、6、7、8、9、? 、_、一、一些、一何、一切、一則、
一方面、一旦、一來、一樣、一般、一轉眼、不僅、不但、不光、不單、不只、
不外乎、不成、不拘、不料、不是、不比、不然、不特、不獨、不管、不至於
the common fraud events are categorized into seven types
for the fraud-classification model in this study.
Step 2. Delete stop words and meaningless phrases from
the database to reduce the bias of unimportant words.
Step 3. Semantic features are extracted using word-
embedding methods including Word2vec, ELMO, BERT,
and DistilBERT.
Step 4. Input the semantic features into six classifica-
tion models, namely random forest, naïve Bayesian,
SVM, adaptive boosting (Adaboost), K-nearest neighbor
(KNN), and artificial neural network (ANN).
3.1.1 Fraud events collection
To build a model that can identify fraudulent behaviors, it
is necessary to collect and analyze a large number of fraud
events. From the collected data, we inferred that the seven
most common fraud events in Taiwan are related to ATMs,
shopping websites, mobile payments, and counterfeiting.
Owing to the wide variety of communication channels and
suspected fraudulent reasons, it is impossible to know what
channels and reasons the fraudsters will use to commit fraud.
Therefore, 12 people were assigned to change the channels
of communication and the reasons for fraudulent behaviors,
and a database of the seven types of fraud was created using
spoken language. It aims to increase the generalizability of
the model by enabling different people to describe the same
fraudulent behavior in different ways.
3.1.2 NLP
The first step after building a database is to perform word
slicing, which involves cutting the entire sentence into
4667
single words for sentence analysis and subsequent pro-
cessing. In this study, we used the Jieba module based on
the Trie Tree structure, which is an open-source Python
package for the Chinese language to cut words for the
database. The second step is to perform stop-word process-
ing. Because the language corpus contains many unimpor-
tant words, such as tone words, numbers, and symbols,
it reduces the influence of these words on the model and
increases the accuracy of the model. Therefore, we create
a stop-word list, as shown in Table 1, and then, we can
proceed to the next stage to extract the features of utter-
ance by eliminating all stop words from the stop-word list.
3.1.3 Semantic feature extraction
When training subsequent classification models, the accu-
racy of the prediction results is typically affected if differ-
ent features are selected in the previous training. In recent
years, owing to the growth of deep learning, deep repre-
sentation learning has become the mainstream method for
generating effective eigenfeatures. Therefore, in this study,
we begin with deep representation learning to find and
compare relevant feature extraction methods.
To learn deep representations from sentences, we
extracted features from a database of fraudulent scenarios
by removing deactivated words from each content. In this
study, four representative embedding models were used,
and the experiments were used to determine the parameter
settings of different embedding models to obtain the best
feature extraction method in the financial fraud domain
(see Table 2).
13
4668 J.-W. Chang et al.

Table 2  Parameter settings of semantic feature extraction

Word2vec ELMO BERT DistilBERT

Pre-processing 1. Tokenize None

2. Stop word
Input 985 tokenized texts 985 non-tokenized texts
Parameter Gensim Tensorflow hub Transformers Transformers
size: 300 trainable: True model: Bert model: DistilBert
min_count: 1 signature: default tokenizer: tokenizer:
as_dict: True BertTokenizer DistilBertTokenizer
pretrained_weights: pretrained_weights:
bert-base-uncased distilbert-base-uncased
dropout: 0.1 dropout: 0.1
dim: 768 dim: 768
hidden_dim: 3072 hidden_dim: 3072
Output 300 dimensions 1024 dimensions 768 dimensions 768 dimensions

Table 3  Parameter settings of classification models with conventional machine learning

Model Random forest Naïve Bayes SVM Adaboost KNN

Input 985 texts of the four embeddings (Word2vec, ELMO, Bert, DistilBert)
Parameters sklearn: sklearn: sklearn: sklearn: Sklearn:
RandomForestClassifier GaussianNB SVC AdaBoostClassifier KNeighborsClassifier
n_estimators: [10,25,50,100] kernel: n_estimators: n_neighbors:
[rbf, poly, linear] [25,50,100] [3,25,100]
C: (Internet Crime Report Released random_state: None
2019)
degree: (Sun et al. 2019)
gamma: [0.5,1e−3, 1e−4]
Output predict(X_test)
Evaluation accuracy_score(y_true, y_pred)

3.1.4 Classification models Table 4  Parameter settings of classification models with deep learn-
ing
After word embedding extracts the features of the content, Model ANN
this study uses six classification models, including random
Input 985 texts of the four embeddings
forest, Navier Bayes, SVM, Adaboost, KNN, and ANN, to
(Word2vec, ELMO, Bert,
perform experiments with four different features generated DistilBert)
by word embedding and grid search for machine-learning Parameters Keras
search. The best parameter for determining which word input_shape: The word embed-
embedding combinations with multiple classifiers have the ding output dimension
activation: [relu, linear]
highest classification accuracy will be used as a model to
layer (Adewumi and Akinyelu
identify new fraudulent behaviors in the future, as shown 2017; Martina and Wu 2016)
in Tables 3 and 4. batch_size: 128
epochs: 500
3.2 Case study Output val_loss, val_accuracy
Evaluation validation_data = (X_test, y_test)
3.2.1 Selection of data source from fraud open platforms

In addition to reporting financial fraud information by users,
we collect data from various public websites to accurately
determine whether users have been a victim of fraud. The
following is an introduction to various channels to collect
fraud events.
1. Users report fraud events through the line chatbot:
A reporting mechanism is established to allow users to
proactively provide information about the fraud events
that they encounter. Once submitted, it will be manu-
ally verified, and if it is determined to be fraudulent, the

13
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud…
Fig. 4  Rasa NLU and Rasa
Core Flowchart
Fig. 5  Intent and entity identi-
fication from conversations by
Rasa NLU
event will be included in the database training model
and scored based on the frequency of queries. Once the
event score is above a predetermined threshold, a pro-
active push is made to prevent further users from being
scammed.
2. Cofacts Database: The Cofacts5 database classifies
all events into four categories. Each event contains the
original and existing responses, with the reason for the
fraud mark, and its source with URL. The system editors
also conducted checks to increase the credibility of the
content. Because the database contains rumors and fake
news, information that is not related to financial fraud
will be excluded before data collection.
3. National Police Agency, Ministry of the Interior: The
National Police Agency mainly provides information
such as news, rumor dispelling, high-risk stores, fraudu-
lent calls, and anti-fraud propaganda in the 165 National
Fraud Prevention Network.6 The website is mainly for
the public to prevent fraud propaganda; thus, it uses
easy-to-understand text with comic style descriptions
for the public. As this website is launched by a govern-
ment agency, it is more reliable than other websites.
3.2.2 Implementation of anti‑financial fraud robot
To build an anti-financial fraud chatbot, it is necessary to
select a backend model that meets the requirements of this
study and connect it to Line’s chatbot as the frontend chan-
nel because of the need to process the user’s conversations
in a natural language. In this study, an open-source dialog
5
https://​cofac​ts.​g0v.​tw/
6
https://​165.​npa.​gov.​tw/
4669
framework called “Rasa” is applied as the backend basis for
the chatbot (Bocklisch et al. 2017).
Rasa consists of two modules: Rasa NLU (see the blue
part in Fig. 4) is used to understand the user’s semantics,
identify intent and entity in sentences, and convert them
into structured data for Rasa Core. In addition, Rasa Core
(see the green part in Fig. 4) is a conversation management
platform that can predict the most appropriate next actions
based on conversation history.
Rasa NLU represents sentences as vectors by pre-trained
word embeddings to train the intention classifier to remain
robust. After the aggregation platform is organized, all the
mapping and corresponding keyword results obtained in
this study are created in the Rasa NLU to help the chatbot
identify and categorize user narratives. Figure 5 shows the
most trusted intentions and keywords selected by Rasa NLU
when Rasa receives user messages. Therefore, the proposed
fraud detection and classification models can be integrated
into the Rasa NLU.
In the language-generating part, various responses can be
generated through multiple templates, which is an easier and
more reliable method than using neural networks to generate
responses (Wen et al. 2015).
The narrative is the conversation flowchart between a
chatbot and a user under a specific scenario, and the story
definition is processed in Rasa Core. A variety of scenarios
are required to guide the chatbot. For example, the design of
a dialogue flow that greets the user and where the response
may be positive or negative is visualized in Fig. 6 (blue:
intent, white: reply message).
In addition, a “domain” refers to the knowledge base of
a chatbot that defines the intent and entity categories, the
types of messages to respond to, the content of the messages
13
4670
Fig. 6  Conversation flowchart in story definition
Fig. 7  Examples of the replies to legal intent
to respond to, the messages needed to be collected, and the
fallback action.
To classify chat robots accurately and respond to differ-
ent user inputs, it is necessary to conceive the conversa-
tion scenarios and flow between chat robots and users. In
this study, we classified the user’s story into the following
categories: beginning and ending greetings, legal contexts,
13
J.-W. Chang et al.
illegal contexts, pending-confirmation contexts, new-event
contexts, and non-interrogative-intention contexts. As the
user query is identified as the legal intent, the following con-
textual flow was designed to respond to a legitimate situa-
tion, as shown in Fig. 7.
From the collected data, there are many keywords con-
sidered to be financial fraud in Taiwan; once these keywords
appear in the content or if there are certain unreasonable
keyword combinations, the content can be determined as
fraudulent, as shown in Fig. 8. The linguistic content of
illegal situations is listed in the introduction to the dataset.
3.2.3 Implementation of fraud detection
To develop an intention-discrimination model for the finan-
cial fraud-prevention chatbot, this study organized and
analyzed a fraud event-aggregation platform and classified
the financial-related intentions entered by users into three
categories: legal, illegal, and pending confirmation. The
sub-categories of each category are listed, and these cases
are used to train a fraud-detection model. Each of the three
categories is defined below, and detailed information is pro-
vided in the introduction to the dataset.
1. Legal: By organizing the collected fraud data to list the
legitimate financial content that people often ask about,
the fraud-detection model determines a situation as
legitimate only if the user explicitly mentions a legiti-
mate type of language. Since some frauds use the name
of a government or a corporation to create content that is
not within the scope of the entity’s business or cannot be
present at the same time as the entity, this study defines
a legitimate situation as one in which a legitimate entity
is doing something legitimate within its purview. It is
important to note that the suspected fraudulent reasons
are those that have actually occurred in Taiwan, but if
they occur in the corresponding legal entity, they will
still be considered legal. Exceptional behavior will be
explained in detail later under the category of illegal
behavior.
2. Illegal: In the illegal category, in addition to the com-
mon financial fraud in Taiwan, there is a list of multiple
intentions that match the game points. Typically, normal
financial-related intentions belong to the legal category,
but when two normal intentions appear at the same time,
they may turn into illegal intentions; e.g., water bills
and game points both belong to the legal category. For
example, water fees and game points belong to the legal
category. However, if the situation of “using game points
to pay water fee” is unreasonable, it will change from
a legal category to an illegal category. Therefore, this
study treats game points as a special behavior that needs
to be judged separately and defines illegal situations as
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud…
Fig. 8  Examples of the replies of illegal contexts
illegal keywords collated from a fraud centralized plat-
form and legitimate entities doing illegal or out-of-office
business.
3. Pending Confirmation: By analyzing Taiwan’s recent
profile from the fraud event aggregation platform, we
know that the reasons for financial fraud are varied and
unpredictable; thus, it is not possible to train a model
on the reasons for financial fraud. However, this study
found that when an unscrupulous person finally wants
to transfer the victim’s money, the most common chan-
nels are ATMs, counters, shopping sites, mobile pay-
ments, etc.; thus, if one can detect these intentions first,
it is possible to go back to the beginning. In this study,
the situation to be confirmed is defined as a situation in
which the user only mentions financial keywords, chan-
nels, and reasons but does not specify somebody, some-
thing, or reasons for the above keywords thus requires
further questioning by the fraud-detection model.
4 Experiment and statistics
The experimental results of this study first present a self-
created dataset that will be used to experiment with the
accuracy of the proposed method. The first part performs
experiments on the detection of user-entered events by the
fraud-detection model, and the second part performs experi-
ments on the effectiveness of the fraud-classification model
when classifying seven known fraudulent behaviors.
4.1 Dataset
Since there is no literature or research that provides a Chi-
nese version of the financial fraud events, this study builds
this dataset through a pooled platform. There are three major
4671
categories: 625 legal, 674 pending confirmation, and 985
illegal (including seven types of fraud events) situations,
and the data were divided into training and testing sets in a
ratio of 8:2 to provide a basis for subsequent validation of
each model. Seven types of fraud events were sampled and
are presented in the Appendix Table 15 for further reference.
4.2 fraud‑detection model
This study uses a grid search to achieve the best accuracy
for each combination and find the best parameters for all
combinations, as shown in Table 5.
A user starts by describing the situation to a chatbot. The
fraud-detection model first extracts and classifies three sce-
narios based on the content provided by the user. In this
study, we will experiment with four word embedding meth-
ods and six multi-classification methods and cross-examine
which combination has the highest classification accuracy.
As shown in Table 6, DistilBERT with random forest had the
highest accuracy (98.7%), and DistilBERT had the highest
accuracy among the feature-extraction methods.
In this study, the execution time is calculated and aver-
aged for all combinations of fraud-detection models, as
shown in Table 7. It was found that the average execution
time of DistilBERT was nearly half that of BERT.
This study further analyzes the classification of the best
fraud-detection model (DistilBERT embedding with the ran-
dom forest classifier) using a confusion matrix, as shown in
Table 8. It can be observed that a few strokes of legal and
illegal situations are categorized into pending situations,
illustrating that legal and illegal situations are easily con-
founded with pending situations that do not have explicit
keywords or directions.
The final report of the classification results for the fraud-
detection model is presented in Table 9. The overall model
13
4672 J.-W. Chang et al.

Table 5  Parameter optimization Word embedding Classifier Parameters Accuracy

for fraud detection by grid
search according to accuracy Word2vec Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.881 (±0.141)
n_estimators: 25 0.910 (±0.072)
n_estimators: 50 0.899 (±0.104)
n_estimators: 100 0.911 (±0.100)
Naïve Bayes none 0.742 (±0.105)
SVM kernel: linear 0.757 (±0.167)
kernel: poly 0.813 (±0.152)
C:1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.152 (±0.006)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.152 (±0.006)
C: 100,gamma: 0.001,kernel: rbf 0.311 (±0.260)
C: 100, gamma: 0.000, kernel: rbf 0.152 (±0.006)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.824 (±0.078)
n_estimators: 50 0.776 (±0.152)
n_estimators: 100 0.767 (±0.148)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.805 (±0.091)
n_neighbors: 25 0.774 (±0.130)
n_neighbors: 100 0.757 (±0.125)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.909
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.895
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.908
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.838
ELMO Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.926 (±0.039)
n_estimators: 25 0.957 (±0.022)
n_estimators: 50 0.962 (±0.026)
n_estimators: 100 0.965 (±0.025)
Naïve Bayes none 0.814 (±0.069)
SVM kernel: linear 0.968 (±0.016)
kernel: poly 0.938 (±0.023)
C: 1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.939 (±0.030)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.831 (±0.031)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.979 (±0.018)
C: 100 0.935 (±0.033)
gamma: 0.0001 kernel: rbf
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.815 (±0.054)
n_estimators: 50 0.867 (±0.049)
n_estimators: 100 0.895 (±0.043)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.955 (±0.036)
n_neighbors: 25 0.890 (±0.057)
n_neighbors: 100 0.822 (±0.073)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.979
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.963
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.975
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.965

13
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud… 4673

Table 5  (continued) Word embedding Classifier Parameters Accuracy

BERT Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.968 (±0.022)

n_estimators: 25 0.975 (±0.025)
n_estimators: 50 0.982 (±0.014)
n_estimators: 100 0.981 (±0.020)
Naïve Bayes default 0.749 (±0.046)
SVM kernel: linear 0.984 (±0.015)
kernel: poly 0.952 (±0.041)
C: 1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.741 (±0.056)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.002)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.986 (±0.016)
C: 100, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.900 (±0.053)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.890 (±0.071)
n_estimators: 50 0.910 (±0.041)
n_estimators: 100 0.921 (±0.031)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.980 (±0.022)
n_neighbors: 25 0.901 (±0.068)
n_neighbors: 100 0.801 (±0.049)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.985
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.982
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.980
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.422
DistilBERT Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.970 (±0.027)
n_estimators: 25 0.977 (±0.019)
n_estimators: 50 0.987 (±0.013)
n_estimators: 100 0.984 (±0.019)
Naïve Bayes default 0.827 (±0.050)
SVM kernel: linear 0.969 (±0.019)
kernel: poly 0.912 (±0.059)
C: 1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.002)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.002)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.976 (±0.020)
C: 100, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.834 (±0.056)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.874 (±0.058)
n_estimators: 50 0.916 (±0.026)
n_estimators: 100 0.924 (±0.027)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.983 (±0.021)
n_neighbors: 25 0.931 (±0.033)
n_neighbors: 100 0.836 (±0.047)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.983
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.981
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.979
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.975

13
4674 J.-W. Chang et al.

Table 6  Classification accuracy Classifiers embeddings Random forest Naïve Bayes SVM Adaboost KNN ANN Average
of fraud detection
Word2vec 91.1% 74.2% 81.3% 82.4% 80.5% 90.9% 83.4%
(±0.1) (±0.1) (±0.15) (±0.07) (±0.09)
ELMO 96.5% 81.4% 97.9% 89.5% 95.5% 97.9% 93.1%
(±0.02) (±0.06) (±0.01) (±0.04) (±0.03)
BERT 98.2% 74.9% 98.6% 92.1% 98% 98.5% 93.3%
(±0.01) (±0.04) (±0.01) (±0.03) (±0.02)
DistilBERT 98.7% 82.7% 97.6% 92.4% 98.3% 98.3% 94.6%
(±0.01) (±0.05) (±0.02) (±0.02) (±0.02)
Average 96.1% 78.3% 93.8% 89.1% 93% 96.4% –

Table 7  Execution time of fraud Classifiers Embeddings Random Naïve Bayes SVM Adaboost KNN ANN Average
detection models (unit: second) Forest

Word2vec 5.24 3.64 4.72 7.19 3.78 34.91 9.91

ELMO 19.12 15.95 20.71 29.42 17.45 277.8 63.4
BERT 401.19 403.14 408.19 408.93 411.03 492.32 420.8
DistilBERT 199.82 201.14 203.81 199.23 194.97 324.91 220.64
Average 156.34 155.96 159.35 161.19 156.8 282.48 –

Table 8  Confusion matrix for the best fraud detection model more detailed information but people are without any finan-
(DistiBERT+Random Forest) cial damages. In contrast, false-negative cases can cause
Prediction actual Legal Illegal Pending people to be deceived and cause financial losses. In Table 8,
confirma- most error cases of the proposed model are false-positive
tion cases and no one illegal event was classified into a legal
Legal 125 0 3 event. The results show that the proposed model can address
Illegal 0 187 3 the most important research problem for fraud detection.
Pending confirmation 0 1 138

4.3 Fraud‑event classification
Table 9  Classification results for the best fraud detection model
(DistiBERT+Random Forest) The study uses a grid search to optimize the best accuracy
Precision Recall F1-score for each combination and finds the best parameters with the
highest accuracy, as shown in Table 10.
Legal 1.00 0.98 0.99 When the fraud-event detection model classifies the user's
Pending confirmation 0.96 0.99 0.98 query context as illegal, the system should accurately pro-
Illegal 0.99 0.98 0.99 vide the most appropriate response to the user. The fraudu-
Accuracy 0.98 lent event-classification model must be able to identify the
type of illegal event from the user query. Therefore, the four
semantic extraction methods and the six classification mod-
had an accuracy of 98%. Although the proposed model els were used to train the best fraud detection and fraud event
achieved excellent performance in fraud-detection, we fur- classification models in this study. As shown in Table 11,
ther do the error analysis by Table 8. In Table 8, the number BERT with SVM has the highest accuracy (98.4%).
of false-positive to be identified is relatively high in the cases An experiment was conducted to verify the execution
of "Pending Confirmation" so that the precision of "Pending time for all the classification combinations. The results are
Confirmation" to be identified is low. However, the sensitiv- presented in Table 12. The average time for DistilBERT was
ity of the fraud-detection model is more important so that also significantly lower than that for BERT.
the error cases classified into false-positive are better than An evaluation of the BERT paired with an SVM was
false-negative. Because more false-negative cases lower the conducted for the fraud-classification model. The confusion
sensitivity of the fraud-detection model. In the false-positive matrix for classification is shown in Table 13. It was found
cases, another round of dialogue is activated for collecting that only two out of the seven fraudulent behaviors were

13
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud… 4675

Table 10  Parameters Word embedding Classifier Parameters Accuracy

optimization for fraud-event
classification by grid search Word2vec Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.892 (±0.077)
according to accuracy
n_estimators: 25 0.931 (±0.068)
n_estimators: 50 0.937 (±0.072)
n_estimators: 100 0.938 (±0.077)
Naïve Bayes none 0.468 (±0.165)
SVM kernel: linear 0.305 (±0.059)
kernel: poly 0.378 (±0.217)
C: 1 m, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.000)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.000)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.227 (±0.041)
C: 100, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.000)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.541 (±0.268)
n_estimators: 50 0.718 (±0.249)
n_estimators: 100 0.841 (±0.109)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.766 (±0.129)
n_neighbors: 25 0.515 (±0.153)
n_neighbors: 100 0.244 (±0.115)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.891
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.897
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.934
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.959
ELMO Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.799 (±0.097)
n_estimators: 25 0.836 (±0.069)
n_estimators: 50 0.878 (±0.064)
n_estimators: 100 0.898 (±0.049)
Naïve Bayes none 0.808 (±0.089)
SVM kernel: linear 0.911 (±0.069)
kernel: poly 0.862 (±0.063)
C: 1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.843 (±0.068)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.246 (±0.100)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.917 (±0.066)
C: 100, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.908 (±0.072)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.595 (±0.228)
n_estimators: 50 0.708 (±0.123)
n_estimators: 100 0.703 (±0.178)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.882 (±0.065)
n_neighbors: 25 0.777 (±0.108)
n_neighbors: 100 0.609 (±0.171)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.925 (±0.046)
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.912 (±0.058)
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.916 (±0.044)
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.905 (±0.038)

13
4676 J.-W. Chang et al.

Table 10  (continued) Word embedding Classifier Parameters Accuracy

BERT Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.929 (±0.048)

n_estimators: 25 0.949 (±0.048)
n_estimators: 50 0.957 (±0.058)
n_estimators: 100 0.962 (±0.044)
Naïve Bayes none 0.815 (±0.123)
SVM kernel: linear 0.984 (±0.035)
kernel: poly 0.930 (±0.066)
C: 1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.239 (±0.017)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.032 (±0.002)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.980 (±0.256)
C: 100, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.956 (±0.046)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.662 (±0.156)
n_estimators: 50 0.751 (±0.184)
n_estimators: 100 0.815 (±0.090)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.952 (±0.043)
n_neighbors: 25 0.843 (±0.098)
n_neighbors: 100 0.689 (±0.209)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.970
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.968
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.979
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.972
DistilBERT Random Forest n_estimators: 10 0.945 (±0.053)
n_estimators: 25 0.965 (±0.030)
n_estimators: 50 0.967 (±0.038)
n_estimators: 100 0.974 (±0.042)
Naïve Bayes none 0.833 (±0.072)
SVM kernel: linear 0.954 (±0.057)
kernel: poly 0.760 (±0.120)
C: 1, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.000)
C: 1, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.143 (±0.000)
C: 100, gamma: 0.001, kernel: rbf 0.972 (±0.051)
C: 100, gamma: 0.0001, kernel: rbf 0.513 (±0.045)
Adaboost n_estimators: 25 0.688 (±0.035)
n_estimators: 50 0.804 (±0.055)
n_estimators: 100 0.832 (±0.045)
KNN n_neighbors: 3 0.957 (±0.032)
n_neighbors: 25 0.894 (±0.055)
n_neighbors: 100 0.759 (±0.091)
ANN layer: 2, activation: relu 0.975
layer: 2, activation: linear 0.968
layer: 3, activation: relu 0.974
layer: 3, activation: linear 0.981

13
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud… 4677

Table 11  Classification Classifiers Embeddings Random Naïve Bayes SVM Adaboost KNN ANN Average
accuracy of the fraud event Forest
classification models
Word2vec 93.8% 46.8% 37.8% 84.1% 76.6% 95.9% 72.5%
(±0.07) (±0.16) (±0.21) (±0.1) (±0.12)
ELMO 89.8% 80.8% 91.7% 70.8% 88.2% 92.5% 85.6%
(±0.04) (±0.08) (±0.06) (±0.12) (±0.06)
BERT 96.2% 81.5% 98.4% 81.5% 95.2% 97.9% 91.3%
(±0.04) (±0.12) (±0.03) (±0.09) (±0.04)
DistilBERT 97.4% 83.3% 97.2% 83.2% 95.7% 98.1% 92.4%
(±0.04) (±0.07) (±0.05) (±0.04) (±0.03)
Average 94.3% 73.1% 81.2% 79.9% 88.9% 95.4% –

Table 12  Execution time of Classifiers Embeddings Random forest Naïve Bayes SVM Adaboost KNN ANN Average
the fraud event classification
models (unit: second) Word2vec 2.9 4.19 4.72 3.53 3.78 36.31 9.23
ELMO 20.35 16.44 15.25 19.89 14.89 274.48 60.21
BERT 218.76 203.06 206.89 208.81 205.26 363.14 234.32
DistilBERT 135.94 111.98 112.74 115.87 111.42 251.3 139.87
Average 94.48 83.91 84.9 87.02 83.83 231.3 –

Table 13  Confusion matrix for Prediction actual Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7
best fraud event-classification
model (BERT+SVM) Type 1 20 0 0 0 1 0 0
Type 2 0 20 0 0 0 0 0
Type 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 0
Type 4 0 0 0 19 0 0 9
Type 5 0 1 0 0 35 0 0
Type 6 0 0 0 0 0 47 0
Type 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 44

Table 14  Classification results of the best fraud event-classification when it has already been determined to be fraud and then
model (BERT+SVM) provides different ways of responding to it, regardless of
Precision Recall F1-score the type of fraudulent behavior, the response is “Judged
to be fraud” and “Recommended to use the hotline of 165
Type 1 1.00 0.95 0.98 National Fraud Prevention Network.” Therefore, this study
Type 2 0.95 1.00 0.98 concludes that misclassification is not likely to cause a seri-
Type 3 1.00 1.00 1.00
ous financial loss when the user has been explicitly informed
Type 4 1.00 1.00 1.00
of the fraud. In addition, it can be seen that the precision and
Type 5 0.97 0.97 0.97
recall of the fraud-classification model are equally impor-
Type 6 1.00 1.00 1.00
tant, and it is necessary to increase the value of both.
Type 7 1.00 1.00 1.00
Accuracy 0.99
5 Conclusion

misclassified, which falls within the average tolerance range
of misclassification.
This study evaluates the classification results for the
fraud-event classification model, as shown in Table 14. The
overall accuracy of the model is 99%. Since the fraud event-
classification model further classifies known fraud behavior
The proposed finance fraud-awareness model applies fea-
ture extraction and classification techniques to process
user-generated content and supports the identification of
currently known finance-fraud cases. The experimental
results show that the accuracy of the fraud detection model
reaches 98.7% using DistilBERT with random forest that of

13
4678 J.-W. Chang et al.

the fraud-classification model reaches 98.4% using BERT
with a SVM.
Interactions between users and chatbots are instantane-
ous, shortening the response time and maintaining a certain
accuracy, thus becoming an important issue. In this study,
with respect to the real-world use scenario, users’ network
connection status and hardware device situation were not
considered. Hence, the question is how high the accuracy
of the proposed model can reach if the above-mentioned
factors during the interaction are not considered. Accord-
ing to the experimental results, the accuracies of BERT
and DistilBERT were comparable. However, the accuracy
of DistilBERT is more suitable for text-feature extraction
owing to efficiency concerns. In addition, Sanh et al. (2019)
indicated that the DistilBERT not only achieves an accuracy
of 97% but also requires fewer parameters (e.g., approxi-
mately 40%). Moreover, DistilBERT achieves a higher pro-
cessing speed (approximately 60% and above) than that of
BERT, which is 30% smaller and 83% faster than ELMO
is. Therefore, DistilBERT could achieve both high perfor-
mance and efficiency with fewer parameters and faster speed
while maintaining the expected performance in this study.
The results verify that DistilBERT was more suitable as a
text feature-extraction method than BERT was in this study
and support the choice of DistilBERT as a feature-extraction
method for both models in real applications.
In terms of classifiers, it was found that the more categories
we have, the longer the classification will take because the ran-
dom forest is a tree-based classification method. Therefore, when
considering efficiency, it was concluded that the size of the cat-
egories may decide whether the random forest method or SVM
method should be applied. According to the experimental results,
it is known that the detection model for classifying three scenarios
and the classification model for classifying seven fraud scenarios
also use random forest and SVM, respectively, indicating that the
efficiencies can be excellent in fraud detection and classification.
Therefore, the entire research framework can use an efficient and
effective method from text-feature extraction to text classification.
Appendix
See Table 15.

Table 15  Sample Fraud Events and Categories

Major Category Secondary Category Samples

Legal legal organization 我昨天收到一個交通部送來的裁罰通知

+ (I received a fine ticket from ministry of transport.)
regular event of this organization
legal organization 朋友昨天去附近小七買遊戲點數
+ (My friend bought the game points at 7-ELEVEN yesterday.)
regular behavior to this organization
Illegal suspected person 昨天電話中有人要求我使用ATM解除分期付款
+ (Someone asked me to cancel the installment via ATM yesterday in a phone call.)
regular behavior
suspected person 有自稱是OO銀行的稽核員要求我將伍萬新臺幣匯給他, 他就不會凍結我的銀行
+ 帳戶。
legal organization (Someone claims to be an auditor from OO bank who asked me to remit the $50,000
NT to him, and then he will not freeze my bank account.)
suspected organization 我沒有在OO商家買過東西, 但該店店員說我買了某商品所以得到了額外的獎
+ 金。
regular behavior (I haven't bought things at the OO store, but the staff of this store said that I bought
something and won extra prizes.)
suspected organization 我從未聽過OO保險公司, 但是他們的業務主任卻說我這邊有一張過期的保單。
+ (I have never heard of OO insurance company, but the business director of this com-
legal person pany said that I have an expired insurance policy here.)
suspected behavior to this organization 我朋友收到一個交通部裁罰但是要用遊戲點數繳交唉
+ (My friend received a notification saying that she can pay traffic fine ticket by game
legal organization points.)
suspected behavior to this person 今天早上有個警察到我家來, 要求我將信用卡交給他保管
+ (A policeman came to my house this morning and asked me to hand over my credit
legal person card to him for safekeeping.)
other fraud activities 之前看到抽獎活動, 填完個人資料後, 客服就通知我中獎, 只要匯款繳交保證金
就好, 然後我就聯絡不上賣家
(I cannot contact the seller after being told to pay for guarantee fees for a lottery.)
Pending without critical information 我今天早上收到一則簡訊通知
Confirmation (I received a text message this morning.)

13
Design of a NLP‑empowered finance fraud awareness model: the anti‑fraud chatbot for fraud…
Acknowledgements Special thanks to Mr. Hou-Hsun Wang for his
assistance in the development of the programming for this study.
Funding This work was partially supported by the Ministry of
Science and Technology, Taiwan, R.O.C. [grand number MOST
108-2218-E-025-002-MY3].
Availability of data and material Data, experiment dataset as well, is
accessible per reasonable request.
Code Availability Code will be available per reasonable request after
the patent is filed.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest Authors of this work declare that there is no con-
flict of interest/competing interests.
Consent for participate Authors are aware of everything related to this
submitted work.
Consent for publication Authors are aware of the submitted work for
publication on Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Com-
puting.
References
Adewumi AO, Akinyelu AA (2017) A survey of machine-learning and
nature-inspired based credit card fraud detection techniques. Int J
Syst Assur Eng Manage 8:937–953
Aggarwal A, Chauhan A, Kumar D, Mittal M, Verma S (2020) Clas-
sification of fake news by fine-tuning deep bidirectional trans-
formers based language model. EAI Endorsed Trans Scalable Inf
Syst 7(27):1–12
Bocklisch T, Faulkner J, Pawlowski N, Nichol A (2017) Rasa: Open
source language understanding and dialogue management. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1712.05181.
Chen LC, Hsu CL, Lo NW, Yeh KH, Lin PH (2017) Fraud analysis
and detection for real-time messaging communications on social
networks. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 100:2267–2274
Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, Toutanova K (2018) Bert: Pre-training of
deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. arXiv
preprint arXiv:1810.04805.
Hajek P, Henriques R (2017) Mining corporate annual reports for
intelligent detection of financial statement fraud–A comparative
4679
study of machine learning methods. Knowledge-Based Syst
128:139–152
2019 Internet Crime Report Released (2019) https://w ​ ww.f​ bi.g​ ov/n​ ews/​
stori​es/​2019-​inter​net-​crime-​report-​relea​sed-​021120. Accessed 28
May 2020.
Jurgovsky J, Granitzer M, Ziegler K, Calabretto S, Portier PE, He-
Guelton L, Caelen O (2018) Sequence classification for credit-
card fraud detection. Expert Syst Appl 100:234–245
Lilleberg J, Zhu Y, Zhang Y (2015) Support vector machines and word-
2vec for text classification with semantic features. 2015 IEEE 14th
International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive
Computing (ICCI*CC), pp 136–140, 6–8 Jul 2015, Beijing, China.
Ling M, Chen Q, Sun Q, Jia Y (2020) Hybrid neural network for
Sina Weibo sentiment analysis. IEEE Trans Comput Social Syst
7(4):983–990
Martina M, Wu JR (2016) China blames Taiwan criminals for surge
in telephone scams. Reuters. https://​www.​reute​rs.​com/​artic​le/​us-​
china-t​ eleco​ ms-f​ raud-i​ dUSKC​ N0XJ0​ 22. Accessed 22 April 2016.
Mikolov T, Chen K, Corrado G, Dean J (2013) Efficient estima-
tion of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1301.3781.
Peters ME, Neumann M, Iyyer M, Gardner M, Clark C, Lee K,
Zettlemoyer L (2018) Deep contextualized word representa-
tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05365.
Rexha A, Dragoni M, Kern R (2020) A Neural-based Architecture
For Small Datasets Classification. In: Proceedings of the ACM/
IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries in 2020 (JCDL '20),
pp 319–327, 1–5 Aug 2020, China.
Sanh V, Debut L, Chaumond J, Wolf T (2019) DistilBERT, a distilled
version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lighter. arXiv pre-
print arXiv:1910.01108.
Sun C, Yang Z, Luo L, Wang L, Zhang Y, Lin H, Wang J (2019) A
deep learning approach with deep contextualized word representa-
tions for chemical-protein interaction extraction from biomedical
literature. IEEE Access 7:151034–151046
Wen TH, Gasic M, Mrksic N, Su PH, Vandyke D, Young S (2015)
Semantically conditioned lstm-based natural language generation
for spoken dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.01745.
Wensen L, Zewen C, Jun W, Xiaoyi W (2016) Short text classification
based on Wikipedia and Word2vec. 2016 2nd IEEE International
Conference on Computer and Communications (ICCC), pp 1195–
1200, 14–17 Oct 2016, Chengdu, China.
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13