Machine learning based fraudulent detection system for financial transactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining the integrity of financial systems and preventing people and organizations from suffering financial losses depend heavily on the ability to spot fraudulent financial transactions. Traditional rule-based fraud detection methods have trouble identifying intricate patterns and developing fraud tactics. Machine learning approaches have become powerful fraud detection tools in recent years, utilizing the strength of data-driven models to spot fraudulent actions. The Existing rule-based fraud detection has difficulty in identifying complex patterns and evolving fraud tactics. This study thoroughly investigates the use of machine learning techniques, including decision trees and random forests, for financial transaction fraud detection, while also exploring feature engineering approaches to extract essential data from transaction records such as temporal, spatial, and relational features. In this study, real-world financial transaction datasets are used to conduct experimental evaluations, comparing the performance of various machine learning models based on accuracy, precision, recall, and F1- score. The results indicate that certain algorithms outperform others, demonstrating promising and favorable outcomes for CatBoost algorithm. This significance of our study lies in showcasing the effectiveness of machine learning techniques, compared to traditional rule-based methods, for detecting fraud in financial transactions, leading to more promising outcomes and contributing to the integrity and security of financial systems.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".