Assessing the feasibility of machine learning-based modelling and prediction of credit fraud outcomes using hyperparameter tuning
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Both the actual theft of a credit card and the deletion of private credit card data are considered forms of credit card fraud. For detection, there are numerous machine learning algorithms accessible. So, several algorithms that can be used to categorize transactions as fraudulent or lawful are illustrated in this study. In this experiment, the credit card fraud prediction dataset was utilized. The dataset is extremely skewed, hence undersampling is used rather than oversampling. The dataset is separated into test and training data portions, and feature selection is made. The experiment uses the methods of Logistic Regression, Random Forest, SVM, ADABoost, XGBoost, and LightGBM. Moreover, the SMOTE and Optuna's hyperparameter tweaking ways provide model customization. The findings suggest that specific algorithms may be capable of accurately recognizing credit card fraud.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it