Ensemble Learning with Supervised Machine Learning Models to Predict Credit Card Fraud Transactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the highly boosting development in e-commerce technologies made it possible for people to select the most desirable items from shops and stores worldwide while being at home. Credit card frauds transactions are common nowadays because of online payments. Online transactions are the root cause of fraudulent credit card activity, bringing enormous financial losses. Financial institutions must install an automatic deterrent mechanism to check these fraudulent actions. The fraudulent transactions do not follow a specific pattern and continuously change their shape and behavior. This paper aims to use ensemble learning with supervised Machine Learning (ML) models to predict the occurrence of fraud transactions. The experimental study has been evaluated on the open-source Kaggle credit card fraud detection dataset. The performance of the proposed model is measured in terms of accuracy score, confusion matrix, and classification report. The results were state-of-the-art using the voting ensemble learning technique shows that it can be get the best results using PCA with 100.0% accuracy, 97.3% precision, 73.5% recall, and 83.7% f1-score against other ML classifiers.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".