Efficient credit card fraud detection using evolutionary hybrid feature selection and random weight networks
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
In the realm of financial security, the detection and prevention of credit card fraud has become paramount. With the ever-increasing reliance on digital transactions, the risk of fraudulent activities targeting credit card systems has grown significantly. To combat this, sophisticated techniques are required to swiftly identify and mitigate potential threats. Machine learning, a cornerstone of modern data analysis, has emerged as a powerful tool in this pursuit. By leveraging vast datasets and employing advanced algorithms, machine learning enables the automated scrutiny of transactions, distinguishing between legitimate and fraudulent activities with remarkable precision. This paper introduces an intelligent method for credit card fraud detection that relies on Competitive Swarm Optimization (CSO) and Random Weight Network (RWN). Additionally, the system includes an automated hybrid feature selection capability to identify the most pertinent features during the detection process. The experimental outcomes validate that this system can attain outstanding results in G-Mean, RUC, and Recall values.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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