Predicting mobile money transaction fraud using machine learning algorithms
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
Abstract The ease with which mobile money is used to facilitate cross‐border payments presents a global threat to law enforcement in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. This paper aims to utilize machine learning classifiers to predict transactions flagged as a fraud in mobile money transfers. The data for this study were obtained from real‐time transactions that simulate a well‐known mobile transfer fraud scheme. Logistic regression is used as the baseline model and is compared with ensemble and gradient descent models. The results indicate that the logistic regression model still showed reasonable performance while not performing as well as the other models. Among all the measures, the random forest classifier exhibited outstanding performance. The amount of money transferred emerged as the top feature for predicting money laundering transactions in mobile money transfers. These findings suggest that further research is needed to enhance the logistic regression model, and the random forest classifier should be explored as a potential tool for law enforcement and financial institutions to detect money laundering activities in mobile money transfers.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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