MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Fuzzy Logic and Neural Network

2016· article· en· W2525985184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit card fraudCredit cardComputer scienceFuzzy logicDefuzzificationData miningToolboxDatabase transactionArtificial intelligenceNeuro-fuzzyArtificial neural networkFuzzy electronicsMachine learningFuzzy set operationsFuzzy setFuzzy control systemFuzzy numberDatabasePayment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The credit card fraud is dramatically increasing due to rise and rapid growth of E-commerce. Due to the huge number of transactions, credit card fraud detection is a big challenge for banks to minimize their losses and for customers to feel secure. In this paper fuzzy database is used to detect credit cards fraud. Fraud detection involves monitoring user's behaviour to estimate, detect or avoid undesirable behaviours. To correctly identify a transaction as legitimate or fraudulent has been considered a data mining problem. In this paper we discuss the fuzzy logic method, fuzzy rules, membership functions, fuzzification and defuzzification. Later, this method is implemented on the dataset using fuzzy logic toolbox in Matlab and the results are compared with the results of the artificial neural network method ANN. Our results indicates that the ANN method is 33% more accurate than the fuzzy logic.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207