Mixed Quantum–Classical Method for Fraud Detection With Quantum Feature Selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a first end-to-end application of a Quantum Support Vector Machine (QSVM) algorithm for a classification problem in the financial payment industry using the IBM Safer Payments and IBM Quantum Computers via the Qiskit software stack. Based on real card payment data, a thorough comparison is performed to assess the complementary impact brought in by the current state-of-the-art Quantum Machine Learning algorithms with respect to the Classical Approach. A new method to search for best features is explored using the Quantum Support Vector Machine's feature map characteristics. The results are compared using fraud specific key performance indicators: Accuracy, Recall, and False Positive Rate, extracted from analyses based on human expertise (rule decisions), classical machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, XGBoost) and quantum-based machine learning algorithms using QSVM. In addition, a hybrid classical-quantum approach is explored by using an ensemble model that combines classical and quantum algorithms to better improve the fraud prevention decision. We found, as expected, that the results highly depend on feature selections and algorithms that are used to select them. The QSVM provides a complementary exploration of the feature space which led to an improved accuracy of the mixed quantum-classical method for fraud detection, on a drastically reduced data set to fit current state of Quantum Hardware.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".