Upload 4 files

app (1).py

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+import gradio as gr
+from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer, Trainer, TrainingArguments, DataCollatorForSeq2Seq
+import datasets
+import torch
+import json
+import os
+import accelerate
+except ImportError:
+    os.system('pip install "accelerate>=0.26.0"')
+
+# Model setup
+MODEL_ID = "facebook/opt-350m"  # Smaller, open access model
+tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(MODEL_ID)
+model = AutoModelForCausalLM.from_pretrained(MODEL_ID, torch_dtype=torch.float16, device_map="auto")
+
+# Function to process uploaded JSON and train
+def train_ui_tars(file):
+    try:
+        # Step 1: Load and preprocess the uploaded JSON file
+        with open(file.name, "r", encoding="utf-8") as f:
+            raw_data = json.load(f)
+       
+        # Extract training pairs or use flat structure
+        training_data = raw_data.get("training_pairs", raw_data)
+       
+        # Save fixed JSON to avoid issues
+        fixed_json_path = "fixed_fraud_data.json"
+        with open(fixed_json_path, "w", encoding="utf-8") as f:
+            json.dump(training_data, f, indent=4)
+       
+        # Load dataset
+        dataset = datasets.load_dataset("json", data_files=fixed_json_path)
+       
+        # Step 2: Tokenize dataset
+        def tokenize_data(example):
+            inputs = tokenizer(example["input"], padding="max_length", truncation=True, max_length=512)
+            targets = tokenizer(example["output"], padding="max_length", truncation=True, max_length=512)
+            inputs["labels"] = targets["input_ids"]
+            return inputs
+       
+        tokenized_dataset = dataset.map(tokenize_data, batched=True)
+       
+        # Step 3: Training setup
+        training_args = TrainingArguments(
+            output_dir="./fine_tuned_llama2",
+            per_device_train_batch_size=2,
+            evaluation_strategy="no",
+            save_strategy="epoch",
+            save_total_limit=2,
+            num_train_epochs=3,
+            learning_rate=2e-5,
+            weight_decay=0.01,
+            logging_dir="./logs"
+        )
+       
+        trainer = Trainer(
+            model=model,
+            args=training_args,
+            train_dataset=tokenized_dataset["train"],
+            data_collator=DataCollatorForSeq2Seq(tokenizer, model=model)
+        )
+       
+        # Step 4: Start training
+        trainer.train()
+       
+        # Step 5: Save the model
+        model.save_pretrained("./fine_tuned_llama2")
+        tokenizer.save_pretrained("./fine_tuned_llama2")
+       
+        return "Training completed successfully! Model saved to ./fine_tuned_llama2"
+   
+    except Exception as e:
+        return f"Error: {str(e)}"
+
+# Gradio UI
+with gr.Blocks(title="Model Fine-Tuning Interface") as demo:
+    gr.Markdown("# OPT-350M Fine-Tuning UI")
+    gr.Markdown("Upload a JSON file with 'input' and 'output' pairs to fine-tune the model on your fraud dataset.")
+   
+    file_input = gr.File(label="Upload Fraud Dataset (JSON)")
+    train_button = gr.Button("Start Fine-Tuning")
+    output = gr.Textbox(label="Training Status")
+   
+    train_button.click(fn=train_ui_tars, inputs=file_input, outputs=output)
+
+# Launch the app
+demo.launch()

final_combined_fraud_data (2).json

@@ -0,0 +1,664 @@
+{
+    "training_pairs": [
+        {
+            "input": "Facility temporarily changes policies immediately before audits, then reverts afterward. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, temporary policy changes around audits indicate fraudulent attempts to pass oversight while maintaining improper practices."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management directs staff to retroactively modify documentation after incidents. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, retroactive documentation modification indicates fraudulent attempt to cover up care issues or incidents."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility keeps different versions of policies for surveyors versus actual practice. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining different policy versions for oversight versus practice indicates intentional fraud to evade regulations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff meetings discuss ways to 'clean up' documentation before audits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, organized efforts to alter documentation before audits indicate systematic fraud in record keeping."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management creates backdated policies after incidents occur. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, backdating policies after incidents indicates fraudulent attempt to avoid liability or oversight consequences."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of modifying staff training records before inspections. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, altering training records before inspections indicates fraudulent documentation to meet requirements."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management routinely adjusts documentation time stamps to meet requirements. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, manipulating time stamps indicates fraudulent alteration of records to appear compliant."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility maintains different documentation standards based on likelihood of audit. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying documentation standards based on audit probability indicates fraudulent record-keeping practices."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff reports pressure to sign off on policies they haven't actually reviewed. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, pressuring staff to falsely verify policy review indicates fraudulent compliance documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management creates perfect documentation trails after learning of upcoming surveys. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, creating artificial documentation trails for surveys indicates fraudulent preparation for oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility reports show consistent patient improvement while internal notes document decline. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, misrepresenting patient outcomes in official reports while documenting actual decline indicates fraudulent reporting to maintain certification or funding."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff documentation shows different standards of care description based on insurance type. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying documentation standards based on payer source indicates fraudulent practices targeting specific payment sources."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility maintains separate documentation sets showing different care levels for same time period. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining contradictory care documentation indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Quality metrics improve dramatically before audits but decline immediately after. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, temporary quality metric improvements around audits indicate fraudulent manipulation of care documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff records show pattern of upgrading documented care levels without change in actual care. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, inflating documented care levels without corresponding care changes indicates fraudulent upcoding and misrepresentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows perfect care metrics while complaint logs show ongoing issues. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, disconnection between reported metrics and documented complaints indicates fraudulent quality reporting."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows identical care outcomes for patients with significantly different conditions. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, uniform outcomes across different conditions indicates fraudulent documentation that doesn't reflect actual care results."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff notes show pressure to document specific outcomes regardless of actual patient status. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, pressuring staff to document predetermined outcomes indicates fraudulent manipulation of care documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility tracks different quality metrics internally versus what's reported externally. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining different internal versus external quality metrics indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care quality."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows pattern of minimizing negative outcomes while amplifying minor improvements. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, selectively documenting outcomes to create positive appearance indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care quality."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of not documenting family complaints or concerns in official records. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, systematically omitting complaints indicates fraudulent documentation designed to hide care issues."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff selectively communicates with some family members while excluding others with equal rights. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, discriminatory communication practices indicate fraudulent attempt to control information flow."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility maintains separate communication logs for internal use versus family viewing. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining different communication records indicates fraudulent information control and misrepresentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management directs staff to route certain family communications to specific personnel only. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, selective routing of family communications indicates fraudulent attempt to control information access."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff documentation shows pattern of minimizing reported care concerns. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, systematically minimizing care concerns indicates fraudulent documentation to avoid oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows different documentation of same events in family versus internal records. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining contradictory event records indicates fraudulent communication practices."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management requires staff to report family communications but not document them officially. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining unofficial communication records indicates fraudulent information control."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility delays or filters communication of significant events to certain family members. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, selective delay or filtering of event communication indicates fraudulent information control."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff records show pattern of documenting family as 'uncooperative' when raising concerns. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, systematically labeling concerned family as uncooperative indicates fraudulent narrative building."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility creates communication barriers for family members who question care. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, creating barriers for questioning family members indicates fraudulent attempt to suppress oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple patient visit notes show identical narrative text with only names and dates changed. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, copy-pasted narrative text across multiple patients is a clear indicator of documentation fraud, as legitimate visit notes should contain unique, patient-specific details."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A provider's documentation shows multiple patient visits occurring at the same exact time. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, documentation of simultaneous patient visits is a clear sign of fraud, as it represents a physical impossibility in care delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Patient visit notes show identical vital signs recorded across multiple different visits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical vital signs across multiple visits indicates fraudulent documentation, as natural variation in vital signs is expected even in stable patients."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Care plans for patients with different conditions are identical word-for-word. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical care plans across different conditions indicates fraudulent documentation, as legitimate care plans should be individualized to each patient's specific condition and needs."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider signatures on multiple documents show different handwriting styles but claim to be from the same person. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying signature styles from the same provider indicates potential forgery and fraudulent documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Progress notes lack specific details about interventions performed and only contain generic descriptions. Is this concerning?",
+            "output": "Yes, vague or generic progress notes lacking specific intervention details can indicate fraudulent documentation designed to hide lack of actual service delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple certifications for different patients are all signed at the exact same time. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, batch signing of certifications without individual review indicates fraudulent documentation, as each certification requires individual consideration."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows perfect formatting and handwriting during emergency situations. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, unusually perfect documentation during crisis situations can indicate after-the-fact fraudulent creation of records."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Terminal diagnosis documentation lacks any supporting diagnostic test results or specialist consultations. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, terminal diagnosis documentation without supporting evidence indicates potential fraudulent diagnosis to justify services."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Patient assessments show no changes in status despite documented significant events. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, unchanged assessments despite documented condition changes indicates fraudulent documentation that fails to reflect actual patient status."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A healthcare provider bills for services on dates when documentation shows no patient visits occurred. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services without corresponding visit documentation is clear Medicare/Medicaid fraud, as it represents billing for services not rendered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider consistently bills routine visits at the highest service level without documentation justifying the complex care. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, routine upcoding of service levels without supporting documentation indicates fraudulent billing practices designed to increase reimbursement."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple bills are submitted for the same service by splitting it into separate claims. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, split billing of a single service into multiple claims is a fraudulent practice designed to maximize reimbursement and avoid detection."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider's documentation shows 15-minute visits but bills are submitted for hour-long sessions. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for longer service durations than documented represents fraudulent billing and misrepresentation of services provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility bills for therapy sessions exceeding their staffing capacity for that time period. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services beyond staffing capacity indicates fraudulent billing for services that could not have been delivered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider receives regular payments from companies to which they refer patients. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, receiving payments for patient referrals indicates illegal kickback arrangements and financial fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "All patients in a facility are billed at identical service levels regardless of condition or care needs. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, uniform service level billing across different patient conditions indicates fraudulent billing practices that don't reflect actual care provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider continues billing Medicare for services after patient's documented date of death. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services after patient death is clear Medicare fraud and represents intentional billing for services not rendered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of billing for services requiring specific certifications when no certified staff are employed. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services without qualified staff indicates fraudulent billing for services that could not have been legally provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider regularly processes refunds then bills higher amounts for same service period. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, pattern of refunds followed by higher billings indicates fraudulent manipulation of payment systems to increase reimbursement."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility temporarily changes policies immediately before audits, then reverts afterward. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, temporary policy changes around audits indicate fraudulent attempts to pass oversight while maintaining improper practices."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management directs staff to retroactively modify documentation after incidents. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, retroactive documentation modification indicates fraudulent attempt to cover up care issues or incidents."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility keeps different versions of policies for surveyors versus actual practice. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining different policy versions for oversight versus practice indicates intentional fraud to evade regulations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff meetings discuss ways to 'clean up' documentation before audits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, organized efforts to alter documentation before audits indicate systematic fraud in record keeping."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management creates backdated policies after incidents occur. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, backdating policies after incidents indicates fraudulent attempt to avoid liability or oversight consequences."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of modifying staff training records before inspections. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, altering training records before inspections indicates fraudulent documentation to meet requirements."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management routinely adjusts documentation time stamps to meet requirements. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, manipulating time stamps indicates fraudulent alteration of records to appear compliant."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility maintains different documentation standards based on likelihood of audit. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying documentation standards based on audit probability indicates fraudulent record-keeping practices."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff reports pressure to sign off on policies they haven't actually reviewed. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, pressuring staff to falsely verify policy review indicates fraudulent compliance documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management creates perfect documentation trails after learning of upcoming surveys. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, creating artificial documentation trails for surveys indicates fraudulent preparation for oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility reports show consistent patient improvement while internal notes document decline. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, misrepresenting patient outcomes in official reports while documenting actual decline indicates fraudulent reporting to maintain certification or funding."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff documentation shows different standards of care description based on insurance type. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying documentation standards based on payer source indicates fraudulent practices targeting specific payment sources."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility maintains separate documentation sets showing different care levels for same time period. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining contradictory care documentation indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Quality metrics improve dramatically before audits but decline immediately after. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, temporary quality metric improvements around audits indicate fraudulent manipulation of care documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff records show pattern of upgrading documented care levels without change in actual care. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, inflating documented care levels without corresponding care changes indicates fraudulent upcoding and misrepresentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows perfect care metrics while complaint logs show ongoing issues. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, disconnection between reported metrics and documented complaints indicates fraudulent quality reporting."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows identical care outcomes for patients with significantly different conditions. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, uniform outcomes across different conditions indicates fraudulent documentation that doesn't reflect actual care results."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff notes show pressure to document specific outcomes regardless of actual patient status. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, pressuring staff to document predetermined outcomes indicates fraudulent manipulation of care documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility tracks different quality metrics internally versus what's reported externally. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining different internal versus external quality metrics indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care quality."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows pattern of minimizing negative outcomes while amplifying minor improvements. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, selectively documenting outcomes to create positive appearance indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care quality."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of not documenting family complaints or concerns in official records. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, systematically omitting complaints indicates fraudulent documentation designed to hide care issues."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff selectively communicates with some family members while excluding others with equal rights. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, discriminatory communication practices indicate fraudulent attempt to control information flow."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility maintains separate communication logs for internal use versus family viewing. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining different communication records indicates fraudulent information control and misrepresentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management directs staff to route certain family communications to specific personnel only. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, selective routing of family communications indicates fraudulent attempt to control information access."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff documentation shows pattern of minimizing reported care concerns. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, systematically minimizing care concerns indicates fraudulent documentation to avoid oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows different documentation of same events in family versus internal records. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining contradictory event records indicates fraudulent communication practices."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management requires staff to report family communications but not document them officially. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining unofficial communication records indicates fraudulent information control."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility delays or filters communication of significant events to certain family members. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, selective delay or filtering of event communication indicates fraudulent information control."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff records show pattern of documenting family as 'uncooperative' when raising concerns. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, systematically labeling concerned family as uncooperative indicates fraudulent narrative building."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility creates communication barriers for family members who question care. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, creating barriers for questioning family members indicates fraudulent attempt to suppress oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple patient visit notes show identical narrative text with only names and dates changed. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, copy-pasted narrative text across multiple patients is a clear indicator of documentation fraud, as legitimate visit notes should contain unique, patient-specific details."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A provider's documentation shows multiple patient visits occurring at the same exact time. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, documentation of simultaneous patient visits is a clear sign of fraud, as it represents a physical impossibility in care delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Patient visit notes show identical vital signs recorded across multiple different visits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical vital signs across multiple visits indicates fraudulent documentation, as natural variation in vital signs is expected even in stable patients."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Care plans for patients with different conditions are identical word-for-word. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical care plans across different conditions indicates fraudulent documentation, as legitimate care plans should be individualized to each patient's specific condition and needs."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider signatures on multiple documents show different handwriting styles but claim to be from the same person. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying signature styles from the same provider indicates potential forgery and fraudulent documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Progress notes lack specific details about interventions performed and only contain generic descriptions. Is this concerning?",
+            "output": "Yes, vague or generic progress notes lacking specific intervention details can indicate fraudulent documentation designed to hide lack of actual service delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple certifications for different patients are all signed at the exact same time. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, batch signing of certifications without individual review indicates fraudulent documentation, as each certification requires individual consideration."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows perfect formatting and handwriting during emergency situations. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, unusually perfect documentation during crisis situations can indicate after-the-fact fraudulent creation of records."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Terminal diagnosis documentation lacks any supporting diagnostic test results or specialist consultations. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, terminal diagnosis documentation without supporting evidence indicates potential fraudulent diagnosis to justify services."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Patient assessments show no changes in status despite documented significant events. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, unchanged assessments despite documented condition changes indicates fraudulent documentation that fails to reflect actual patient status."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A healthcare provider bills for services on dates when documentation shows no patient visits occurred. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services without corresponding visit documentation is clear Medicare/Medicaid fraud, as it represents billing for services not rendered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider consistently bills routine visits at the highest service level without documentation justifying the complex care. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, routine upcoding of service levels without supporting documentation indicates fraudulent billing practices designed to increase reimbursement."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple bills are submitted for the same service by splitting it into separate claims. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, split billing of a single service into multiple claims is a fraudulent practice designed to maximize reimbursement and avoid detection."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider's documentation shows 15-minute visits but bills are submitted for hour-long sessions. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for longer service durations than documented represents fraudulent billing and misrepresentation of services provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility bills for therapy sessions exceeding their staffing capacity for that time period. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services beyond staffing capacity indicates fraudulent billing for services that could not have been delivered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider receives regular payments from companies to which they refer patients. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, receiving payments for patient referrals indicates illegal kickback arrangements and financial fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "All patients in a facility are billed at identical service levels regardless of condition or care needs. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, uniform service level billing across different patient conditions indicates fraudulent billing practices that don't reflect actual care provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider continues billing Medicare for services after patient's documented date of death. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services after patient death is clear Medicare fraud and represents intentional billing for services not rendered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of billing for services requiring specific certifications when no certified staff are employed. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services without qualified staff indicates fraudulent billing for services that could not have been legally provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider regularly processes refunds then bills higher amounts for same service period. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, pattern of refunds followed by higher billings indicates fraudulent manipulation of payment systems to increase reimbursement."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A nursing home is billing Medicare for rehabilitation services for residents who don't need them or aren't receiving them. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, this is Medicare fraud. Billing for unnecessary or non-rendered services, like in the SavaSeniorCare LLC case where they paid $11.2M for unnecessary rehabilitation therapy billing, violates the False Claims Act."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A pharmacy is receiving payments from a drug company to promote certain medications to nursing home residents. Is this legal?",
+            "output": "No, this is illegal. This practice involves kickbacks, similar to the Omnicare case where they received disguised kickbacks as 'grants' and 'educational funding' from Abbott Laboratories to promote Depakote to elderly nursing home residents."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A nursing home is using excessive antipsychotic medications to control dementia patients' behavior. Is this appropriate?",
+            "output": "No, this is inappropriate and potentially fraudulent. Using antipsychotics as 'chemical restraints' for dementia patients without proper medical necessity violates regulations and can constitute abuse and fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Nursing home owners are creating shell companies to charge their facilities excessive fees. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, this is fraudulent. Like in the Centers Health Care case, creating shell companies to siphon Medicare/Medicaid funds through inflated fees or loans is illegal financial exploitation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A hospice company is enrolling patients who aren't terminally ill. Is this legal?",
+            "output": "No, this is hospice fraud. False eligibility claims for hospice care, like in the Los Angeles case where $15M was stolen through sham hospice companies enrolling ineligible patients, violates Medicare regulations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A facility is delaying patient discharges even when patients are medically ready to leave. Is this appropriate?",
+            "output": "No, this is fraudulent. Deliberately delaying discharges to increase Medicare billings, as seen in the SavaSeniorCare case, is a form of Medicare fraud that puts profits over patient care."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A nursing home is severely understaffed but billing for full care services. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, this can constitute fraud. Billing for complete care while providing substandard care due to understaffing (like facilities cited by CMS) can violate Medicare/Medicaid requirements and constitute false claims."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff members are stealing residents' personal belongings and money. Is this a form of healthcare fraud?",
+            "output": "Yes, this is financial exploitation, a form of abuse in healthcare settings. When combined with Medicare/Medicaid billing, it can constitute healthcare fraud and violates resident protection regulations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A facility is manipulating real estate deals to extract profits from Medicare/Medicaid funds. Is this legal?",
+            "output": "No, this is fraudulent. Similar to the Centers Health Care case, using collusive real estate arrangements to divert Medicare/Medicaid funds from patient care is illegal financial exploitation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple providers are billing for the same service on the same date for the same patient. Is this proper?",
+            "output": "No, this is likely fraudulent. Double-billing Medicare/Medicaid for the same service is a form of false claims and billing fraud that wastes taxpayer dollars."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A hospice agency maintains patients on service for extended periods without documenting decline or changes in condition. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining hospice patients without documented decline indicates fraudulent certification and billing, as hospice requires documentation of terminal decline."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Agency rapidly expands patient census while maintaining same small staff and showing no infrastructure growth. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, rapid census growth without corresponding staff/infrastructure increases indicates fraudulent billing for services that cannot be delivered with available resources."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows aggressive marketing focus on maintaining census numbers while care quality metrics decline. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, prioritizing census over care quality indicates profit-driven fraud where patient needs are subordinated to financial goals."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff credentials show multiple providers using same license number with slightly different names. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, multiple providers using same license number indicates identity theft and licensing fraud to bill for services without qualified staff."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Patient assessments show identical decline patterns and symptoms across different diagnoses. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical documentation across different conditions indicates fraudulent record manipulation to justify hospice services."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Agency consistently bills for daily visits while documentation shows staff shortages and missed visits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for undelivered visits during documented staff shortages represents clear billing fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff reports pressure to certify patients for hospice despite lack of terminal diagnosis evidence. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, pressuring staff to certify ineligible patients indicates fraudulent certification practices to generate billing."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Agency documents hospital-level care for all patients regardless of actual needs or symptoms. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, uniform high-level care documentation without individual justification indicates fraudulent upcoding for higher reimbursement."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows physicians signing multiple certifications in batches without patient visits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, batch signing of certifications without patient evaluation represents fraudulent documentation and certification fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Agency shows pattern of discharging patients when they reach reimbursement caps, then readmitting under new diagnosis. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, cycling patients through discharge/readmission to reset reimbursement caps indicates fraudulent manipulation of payment systems."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "A nursing home diagnoses 75% of its residents with schizophrenia to justify antipsychotic use. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, this represents fraudulent diagnosis coding. The national average for schizophrenia is under 1%. False schizophrenia diagnoses to justify antipsychotic use in dementia patients is a common fraud scheme CMS actively investigates."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider bills hourly cognitive assessments (CPT 99483) but documentation shows 15-minute visits. Fraud?",
+            "output": "Yes, this is time-based billing fraud. CPT 99483 requires minimum 50 minutes face-to-face time. Billing for longer times than documented represents false claims and may trigger Medicare audits."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider routinely bills cognitive assessments (99483) every 180 days for all dementia patients without evaluation. Proper?",
+            "output": "No, this is fraudulent billing. Medicare requires medical necessity for each cognitive assessment. Routine scheduling without individualized justification suggests systematic fraud and abuse."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows identical cognitive assessment scores and care plans across multiple dementia patients. Issue?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical documentation across patients indicates fraudulent records. Legitimate cognitive assessments and care plans should reflect individual patient symptoms, status, and needs."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility codes all uncooperative dementia patients as having schizophrenia to justify chemical restraints. Legal?",
+            "output": "No, this represents fraudulent diagnosis coding to circumvent CMS restrictions on antipsychotic use. False schizophrenia diagnoses to justify chemical restraints is an active fraud scheme under investigation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider bills both individual (97110) and group therapy (97150) for same time period for dementia patients. Allowed?",
+            "output": "No, billing for simultaneous individual and group therapy is fraudulent. It's physically impossible to provide both services at once, indicating false claims for services not rendered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple providers bill cognitive assessments for same dementia patient within 180-day period. Issue?",
+            "output": "Yes, Medicare only covers one cognitive assessment per patient per 180 days unless documented medical necessity. Multiple provider billing suggests fraudulent duplicate billing."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Skilled nursing facility documents 'memory care services' daily but no details of care provided. Proper?",
+            "output": "No, generic documentation without specific services, interventions, or patient response indicates potential ghost billing. Medicare requires detailed documentation of actual services provided."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider bills highest level E&M codes for all dementia follow-ups regardless of visit complexity. Issue?",
+            "output": "Yes, routine billing of highest level E&M codes without supporting documentation represents upcoding. Visit levels should vary based on service complexity and patient condition."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility diagnoses all dementia patients with psychosis to justify antipsychotic use without documented symptoms. Legal?",
+            "output": "No, diagnosing psychosis without documented symptoms to justify medication use is fraudulent. CMS monitors psychosis diagnosis patterns to detect inappropriate chemical restraint."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider bills for caregiver education but documentation shows no caregiver present. Proper billing?",
+            "output": "No, this is fraudulent billing. Caregiver education requires documented presence of caregiver, specific education provided, and time spent. Billing without caregiver involvement is false claims."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Nursing home documents all dementia residents decline cognitive assessment but bills anyway. Allowed?",
+            "output": "No, billing for declined services is fraudulent. Documentation must show patient's capacity to decline, specific services offered, and that billing was not submitted for declined services."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider adds schizophrenia diagnosis to all dementia patients after CMS antipsychotic audit announced. Suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, adding schizophrenia diagnoses in response to audit announcement suggests fraudulent coding to evade scrutiny. This pattern indicates intentional false documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility bills daily therapeutic activities for dementia unit but documentation shows activities director on leave. Issue?",
+            "output": "Yes, billing for services when staff not present represents false claims. Documentation inconsistency with billing suggests fraudulent charges for services not rendered."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Provider bills cognitive assessment but documentation only shows MMSE score with no other elements. Complete?",
+            "output": "No, this represents incomplete documentation for 99483. Cognitive assessment requires multiple elements including functional assessment, care planning, and safety evaluation. Single MMSE insufficient."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "PRN (as-needed) medications are being administered on a fixed schedule without documented need. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, administering PRN medications on a fixed schedule without documented need indicates potential chemical restraint fraud, as PRN medications should only be given in response to specific symptoms."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Multiple sedating medications are prescribed simultaneously for a patient without documented medical necessity. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, prescribing multiple sedating medications without medical necessity suggests inappropriate chemical restraint and potential medication fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Antipsychotic medications are prescribed to multiple patients without documented psychosis or attempted gradual dose reductions. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, prescribing antipsychotics without proper diagnosis or attempted dose reductions indicates potential medication fraud and chemical restraint abuse."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Medication administration records show identical administration times across multiple patients on different units. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical medication administration times across different units indicates fraudulent documentation, as it represents a physical impossibility in medication delivery."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Comfort packs are ordered early for non-terminal patients without documented symptoms. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, ordering comfort packs for non-terminal patients without documented need indicates potential fraud in anticipation of future service billing."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Controlled substance logs show consistent 'spilled' medications for specific staff members. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, patterns of reported medication spillage by specific staff members indicates potential diversion and fraudulent documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Pain medications are documented as given but pain scores are consistently missing from records. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, missing pain scores for administered pain medications indicates fraudulent documentation and potential medication diversion or misuse."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Sedation levels increase specifically before family visits without documented medical necessity. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, increasing sedation before family visits without medical necessity indicates inappropriate chemical restraint and potential fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Narcotic counts show mathematical errors that always result in missing medications. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, consistent mathematical errors in narcotic counts resulting in shortages indicates potential diversion and fraudulent documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "All patients in a unit are prescribed identical sedation protocols regardless of condition. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, identical sedation protocols across different patient conditions indicates inappropriate prescribing and potential chemical restraint fraud."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility temporarily relocates challenging patients during inspections or audits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, relocating patients during oversight indicates fraudulent attempt to hide care issues or problems."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management maintains different sets of records for auditors versus actual operations. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, maintaining separate documentation sets indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of care and operations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of resolving documented issues only during survey periods. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, temporary issue resolution during surveys indicates fraudulent attempt to pass oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff reports being instructed to change normal procedures during audits. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, changing procedures for audits indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of normal operations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility creates perfect documentation trails just before announced inspections. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, creating artificial documentation for inspections indicates fraudulent preparation for oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management routinely modifies incident reports before submitting to oversight bodies. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, modifying incident reports indicates fraudulent attempt to minimize or hide issues from oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility shows pattern of transferring non-compliant patients before surveys. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, transferring patients to avoid compliance issues indicates fraudulent evasion of oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff documentation shows different care practices during survey windows. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, varying care practices during surveys indicates fraudulent misrepresentation of normal operations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility creates temporary policies and procedures for audit periods. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, creating temporary policies for audits indicates fraudulent attempt to appear compliant."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Management coaches staff on specific responses to surveyor questions. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, coaching staff to provide specific responses indicates fraudulent preparation to mislead oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility restricts specific family members' visits without documented medical necessity or legal basis. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, unauthorized selective visitation restrictions indicate potential fraud, as facilities cannot arbitrarily limit patient access without documented medical necessity or legal authority."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff monitors and records some family visits while leaving others unmonitored without documented justification. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, selective surveillance of specific visitors without documented cause indicates discriminatory practices and potential fraudulent documentation to build narratives."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility implements visit restrictions immediately before concerning care issues are discovered. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, timing visit restrictions to coincide with care issues suggests fraudulent attempt to hide problems and avoid oversight."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff documents patient behaviors differently when certain family members are present versus absent. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, selective behavioral documentation based on visitor identity indicates fraudulent narrative building and documentation bias."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility requires staff to report specific family members' visits to management while not reporting others. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, discriminatory reporting requirements for specific visitors indicates potential fraud in building biased documentation."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Patient care plans show different visitation rules for different family members without medical justification. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, unjustified discriminatory visitation rules in care plans indicate fraudulent care planning and potential rights violations."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff selectively enforces visitation policies based on relationship with facility management. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, inconsistent enforcement of visitation policies indicates fraudulent practices and potential abuse of authority."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Facility changes patient room assignments to make visits more difficult for certain family members. Is this suspicious?",
+            "output": "Yes, manipulating room assignments to obstruct visits indicates fraudulent attempts to control access and communication."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Documentation shows pattern of scheduling care during specific family members' regular visit times. Is this problematic?",
+            "output": "Yes, deliberately scheduling care to interfere with visits indicates fraudulent manipulation of care timing to restrict access."
+        },
+        {
+            "input": "Staff records show instructions to document specific visitors as 'disruptive' without incident descriptions. Is this fraudulent?",
+            "output": "Yes, pre-planned negative documentation without specific incidents indicates fraudulent narrative building and documentation bias."
+        }
+    ]
+}

requirements.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
+torch
+transformers
+datasets
+gradio

train_llama.py

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+from transformers import LlamaForCausalLM, LlamaTokenizer, Trainer, TrainingArguments
+import datasets
+import torch
+from peft import LoraConfig, get_peft_model, prepare_model_for_kbit_training
+from accelerate import Accelerator
+
+# Version and CUDA check
+print(f"PyTorch version: {torch.__version__}")
+print(f"CUDA version: {torch.version.cuda}")
+print(f"Is CUDA available: {torch.cuda.is_available()}")
+print(f"CUDA device: {torch.cuda.get_device_name(torch.cuda.current_device())}")
+
+# Load Llama model and tokenizer
+MODEL_ID = "meta-llama/Llama-2-7b-hf"
+tokenizer = LlamaTokenizer.from_pretrained(MODEL_ID)
+
+# Add padding token if it doesn't exist
+if tokenizer.pad_token is None:
+    tokenizer.add_special_tokens({'pad_token': '[PAD]'})
+
+# Load the model with optimizations for A100 GPU
+model = LlamaForCausalLM.from_pretrained(
+    MODEL_ID,
+    torch_dtype=torch.bfloat16,  # Better for A100 GPUs
+    device_map="auto",
+    use_flash_attention_2=True,  # Flash Attention for faster training
+    load_in_8bit=True  # Quantization for memory efficiency
+)
+
+# Prepare the model for training with LoRA (more memory-efficient)
+model = prepare_model_for_kbit_training(model)
+
+# LoRA configuration
+peft_config = LoraConfig(
+    r=16,               # Rank
+    lora_alpha=32,      # Alpha
+    lora_dropout=0.05,  # Dropout
+    bias="none",
+    task_type="CAUSAL_LM",
+    target_modules=["q_proj", "k_proj", "v_proj", "o_proj"]  # Attention modules for Llama
+)
+
+model = get_peft_model(model, peft_config)
+model.print_trainable_parameters()  # Print percentage of trainable parameters
+
+# Load the dataset with field="training_pairs"
+dataset = datasets.load_dataset("json", data_files="final_combined_fraud_data.json", field="training_pairs")
+
+# Verify the dataset structure
+print("First example from dataset:", dataset["train"][0])
+
+# Define instruction template for formatting inputs
+def format_instruction(example):
+    # Adapt this template based on your specific use case and dataset format
+    return f"""<s>[INST] {example['input']} [/INST] {example['output']}</s>"""
+
+# Tokenization function
+def tokenize_data(example):
+    formatted_text = format_instruction(example)
+    
+    # Tokenize with appropriate padding and truncation
+    inputs = tokenizer(
+        formatted_text,
+        padding="max_length",
+        truncation=True,
+        max_length=2048,  # Llama 2 context length
+        return_tensors="pt"
+    )
+    
+    # Create labels (for causal language modeling, labels are the same as input_ids)
+    inputs["labels"] = inputs["input_ids"].clone()
+    
+    # Keep tensors as-is
+    inputs = {k: v.squeeze(0) for k, v in inputs.items()}
+    return inputs
+
+# Map without forcing Arrow schema
+tokenized_dataset = dataset["train"].map(
+    tokenize_data,
+    batched=False,
+    remove_columns=dataset["train"].column_names
+)
+
+# Debug: Print the first tokenized example
+print("First tokenized example:", {k: (type(v), v.shape if isinstance(v, torch.Tensor) else "list") for k, v in tokenized_dataset[0].items()})
+
+# Custom data collator
+def custom_data_collator(features):
+    batch = {}
+    
+    # Stack tensors
+    batch["input_ids"] = torch.stack([f["input_ids"] for f in features])
+    batch["attention_mask"] = torch.stack([f["attention_mask"] for f in features])
+    batch["labels"] = torch.stack([f["labels"] for f in features])
+    
+    return batch
+
+# Initialize accelerator for distributed training
+accelerator = Accelerator()
+
+# Training setup
+training_args = TrainingArguments(
+    output_dir="./fine_tuned_llama2",
+    per_device_train_batch_size=4,  # Larger batch size for A100
+    gradient_accumulation_steps=8,  # Accumulate gradients to increase effective batch size
+    eval_strategy="no",
+    save_strategy="steps",
+    save_steps=100,
+    save_total_limit=3,
+    num_train_epochs=3,
+    learning_rate=2e-5,
+    weight_decay=0.01,
+    logging_dir="./logs",
+    logging_steps=10,
+    bf16=True,  # Use bfloat16 for A100 GPUs
+    gradient_checkpointing=True,  # Memory optimization
+    optim="adamw_torch",
+    warmup_steps=100,
+)
+
+trainer = Trainer(
+    model=model,
+    args=training_args,
+    train_dataset=tokenized_dataset,
+    data_collator=custom_data_collator,
+)
+
+# Start fine-tuning
+trainer.train()
+
+# Save the fine-tuned model and tokenizer
+model.save_pretrained("./fine_tuned_llama2")
+tokenizer.save_pretrained("./fine_tuned_llama2")
+
+print("Training complete. Model and tokenizer saved to ./fine_tuned_llama2")