AI-Driven Fraud Detection in Digital Banking: Ml Approach for Secure and Transparent Financial Transactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The convenience of digital banking services has transformed the global financial industry and is now available to consumers all over the world. As with any advancement, there’s an increase in associated risk. In this case, we have an upsurge in fraudulent activity, the mobility of cybercriminals, and their more advanced technologies to breach vulnerabilities within digital infrastructures. Indeed, financial crimes are constantly evolving like the rest of technology and society. Those who monitor and manually analyse systems are no match for the speed at which criminals can devise new rule-of-thumb schemes. This article examines how artificial intelligence and machine learning can reform the detection of fraud within digital banking systems. The research analyses different techniques of AI and ML, supervised learning, unsupervised learning, ensemble, and deep learning approaches, while also observing their uses in practical fraud detection systems. The paper also analyses the ethical and legal concerns involving the use of AI within banking, considering data issues, algorithmic discrimination, and other contentious aspects of legal compliance, including quasi-legal frameworks like GDPR and PCI-DSS. It also explores some of the newer directions in AI, like quantum computing, explainable AI (XAI), and federated learning, and their potential implications to improving fraud detection systems performance. Finally, the focus of this paper has been on a continuing effort and partnership across sectors in building resilient, secure, transparent financial systems. AI, ML, and blockchain technologies enhance the capability to prevent fraud in digital banking, while ensuring and maintaining customer trust and security in financial transactions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".