# Posterior Regimes and Latent Deception: Variational Bayesian Inference in Hidden Markov Models for Sequential Fraud Detection in Financial Transactions

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.34031 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.34031/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Layer Normalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06450/) (2016)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.03426/) (2018)
- [Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.11959/) (2021)
- [TabTransformer: Tabular Data Modeling Using Contextual Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.06678/) (2020)
- [Structured Inference Networks for Nonlinear State Space Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.09869/) (2016)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present a three-tier progression of Hidden Markov Models: maximum-likelihood (Baum-Welch), variational Bayesian (VBEM), and a neural variational extension (Neural VBEM), that model each customer's transaction history as a trajectory through a small number of latent behavioural regimes, one of which is empirically identified as fraud-associated. The Neural VBEM HMM replaces the fixed Gaussian-multinomial emission family with a learned encoder, compressing a 741-dimensional transaction representation into a 64-dimensional latent space in which the VBEM HMM's posterior operates; a UMAP projection of this space reveals that the discovered regimes are not discrete clusters but ordered segments of a single continuous behavioural manifold, with confirmed fraud concentrated at its extreme. We show that the model's natural output, that is, the posterior probability of regime membership, is routinely mistaken for a fraud probability, and quantify the resulting miscalibration (the regime-membership interpretation error, MRIE); a corrected posterior-predictive score, closes most of this gap. We further distinguish batch (smoothed) inference, which uses look-ahead unavailable at deployment time, from filtered (forward-only) inference, and report both. On IEEE-CIS transaction data, the neural tier achieves a 14.4× fraud enrichment in its identified regime; while its AUPRC trails a discriminative XGBoost baseline, we show this gap is structural and not incidental, and argue the model is best positioned as a calibrated triage and interpretability layer rather than a drop-in ranking replacement.