MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360977633 · doi:10.59200/iconic.2022.032

Improving Accuracy of Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Supervised Machine Learning Models and Dimension Reduction

2022· article· en· W4360977633 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

VenueInternational Conference on Intelligent and Innovative Computing Applications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsScience North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit cardCredit card fraudDimensionality reductionDimension (graph theory)Machine learningComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceIdentity theftReduction (mathematics)Computer securityMathematicsPayment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Credit card fraud is a serious crime, and it is a common type of identity theft. Financial institutions and consumers are experiencing economical losses due to financial fraud caused by credit card transactions. Machine Learning Models can aid and alleviate credit card fraud by providing real time detection of credit card fraud before it takes place. The problem that arises with machine learning models is poor performance in terms of accuracy if the data objects in dataset have high dimensionality. In this paper we have tested and compared six machine learning models in detecting credit card fraud. Furthermore, dimension reduction techniques was used to improve the performance of these machine learning models. The results show improved accuracy on the machine learning models after applying dimension reduction and removing anomalies and imbalance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.648

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.324
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