MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383560185 · doi:10.54254/2755-2721/4/2023333

Impact of different transaction features on credit card fraud detection by neural networks

2023· article· en· W4383560185 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

VenueApplied and Computational Engineering · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCredit card fraudCredit cardDatabase transactionFeature (linguistics)Computer scienceArtificial neural networkTransaction dataChargebackATM cardCard security codeMachine learningArtificial intelligenceData miningDatabasePaymentWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A perfect credit card fraud detection model is necessary because of the economic loss caused by credit card fraud. Since many models have already gained great performance, this research focuses on the influences of different credit card transaction features on the accuracy of the fraud detection model constructed by a neural network, which is favorable for economists to study credit card fraud better. The data used in this research from Kaggle contains a million credit card transaction records with seven features for each. To analyze the importance of different details, different parameters are used in the input layer of the neural network model to compare the performance. Furthermore, the result is that the feature ratio to the median purchase price is the most significant one. The second important feature is the distance from home, and then online order is followed. Compared with the accuracy when inputting all the seven features(99.81%), the model performs well with only the above three features in the input layer(95.43%).

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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