MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386124573 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3308298

A New Framework for Fraud Detection in Bitcoin Transactions Through Ensemble Stacking Model in Smart Cities

2023· article· en· W4386124573 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

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBlockchain Technology Applications and Security
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersKing Saud University
KeywordsComputer scienceAnomaly detectionNaive Bayes classifierRandom forestEnsemble learningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceData miningHyperparameterContext (archaeology)Decision treeHeuristicAdaBoostSupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bitcoin has a reputation of being used for unlawful activities, such as money laundering, dark web transactions, and payments for ransomware in the context of smart cities. Blockchain technology prevents illegal transactions, but cannot detect these transactions. Anomaly detection is a fundamental technique for recognizing potential fraud. The heuristic and signature-based approaches were the foundation of earlier detection techniques, but tragically, these methods were insufficient to explore the entire complexity of anomaly detection. Machine Learning (ML) is a promising approach to anomaly detection, as it can be trained on large datasets of known malware samples to identify patterns and features of the transactions. Researchers are focusing on determining an efficient fraud and security threat detection model that overcomes the drawbacks of the existing methods. Therefore, ensemble learning can be applied to anomaly detection in Bitcoin by combining multiple ML classifiers. In the proposed model, the ADASYN-TL (Adaptive Synthetic + Tomek Link) balancing technique is used for data balancing. Random search, grid search and Bayesian optimization are used for hyperparameter tuning. The hyperparameters have a great impact on the performance of the model. For classification, we used the stacking model by combining Decision Tree, Naive Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbors, and Random Forest. We used SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) to interpret the predictions of the stacking model. The model also explores the performance of different classifiers using accuracy, F1-score, Area Under Curve-Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC-ROC), precision, recall, False Positive Rate (FPR) and execution time, and ultimately selects the ideal model. The proposed model contributes to the development of effective fraud detection models that address the limitations of the existing algorithms. Our stacking model, which combines the prediction of multiple classifiers, achieved the highest F1-score of 97%, precision of 96%, recall of 98%, accuracy of 97%, AUC-ROC of 99% and FPR of 3%.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.275 · 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