Black-Box Attack-Based Security Evaluation Framework for Credit Card Fraud Detection Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The security of credit card fraud detection (CCFD) models based on machine learning is important but rarely considered in the existing research. To this end, we propose a black-box attack-based security evaluation framework for CCFD models. Under this framework, the semisupervised learning technique and transfer-based black-box attack are combined to construct two versions of a semisupervised transfer black-box attack algorithm. Moreover, we introduce a new nonlinear optimization model to generate the adversarial examples against CCFD models and a security evaluation index to quantitatively evaluate the security of them. Computing experiments on two real data sets demonstrate that, facing the adversarial examples generated by the proposed attack algorithms, all six supervised models considered largely lose their ability to identify the fraudulent transactions, whereas the two unsupervised models are less affected. This indicates that the CCFD models based on supervised machine learning may possess substantial security risks. In addition, the evaluation results for the security of the models generate important managerial implications that help banks reasonably evaluate and enhance the model security. History: Accepted by Ram Ramesh, Area Editor for Data Science & Machine Learning. Funding: This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 72171160 and 71988101], Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China and Quebec Research Foundation (NSFC-FRQ) Joint Project [Grant 7191101304], Key Program of NSFC-FRQSC Joint Project [Grant 72061127002], Excellent Youth Foundation of Sichuan Province [Grant 2020JDJQ0021], and National Leading Talent Cultivation Project of Sichuan University [Grant SKSYL2021-03]. Supplemental Material: The software that supports the findings of this study is available within the paper and its Supplemental Information ( https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/suppl/10.1287/ijoc.2023.1297 ) as well as from the IJOC GitHub software repository ( https://github.com/INFORMSJoC/2021.0076 ) at ( http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7631457 ).
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".