MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7109786261 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.17839658

Converging AI innovation and quantum security for data-driven compliance, financial crime re-regulation

2025· article· en· W7109786261 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImbalanced Data Classification Techniques
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScalabilityRandom forestQuantumCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)QubitCredit cardSet (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study discusses the use of classical and quantum machine learning models to detect fraudulent bank transactions. Random Forest model was tested on credit card fraud detection data set and scored large percentage 99.95, AUC-ROC score/ROC is 1.0 and F1 scores are high. The most influential predictors were identified to be key features including the amount of transaction, periods between transactions, and location. In order to avoid the problem of class imbalance, the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) was utilized, which enhanced the work of the model. Another promising study of quantum hardware scalability limits, but with multiple serious limitations, was the Quantum Support Vector Classifier (QSVC), which faces difficulty in qubit coherence and scalability challenges. These limitations did not allow the model to effectively process large data sets to better accommodate real world applications. Nevertheless, quantum models have the potential to improve the fraud detection system with developing quantum technology. This study brings out the usefulness of Random Forest in detecting fraud cases and outlines the opportunities of quantum models in the future, recommending future research, such as quantum-classical hybrid models, and the enhancement of quantum computers to meet real-time needs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesFrench-language works237,207