MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200468553 · doi:10.21742/ijsbt.2021.9.2.03

Ensemble Techniques for Credit Card Fraud Detection

2021· article· en· W4200468553 on OpenAlexaff
Satya Dileep Penmetsa, Sabah Mohammed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Smart Business and Technology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit card fraudCredit cardComputer scienceEnsemble learningVolatility (finance)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceBusinessFinanceWorld Wide WebPayment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Credit card fraud is a problem that has grown by great danger and has a huge impact on the financial sector. The challenges of credit card fraud are the availability of public data, high imbalance in data, and volatility of the fraud nature. Over the years ensemble learning has gained more importance and proved to give better performance. Here we try to do a comparative study of various ensemble approaches using various learning algorithms on the credit card fraud data and to understand multiple models based on various evaluation and performance metrics using the SMOTE balancing technique.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Smart Business and TechnologySame topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207