Imbalanced Data Challenges and Their Resolution to Improve Fraud Detection in Credit Card Transactions

Authors

  • Vishwa Teja Manda, Kondapalli Dheeraj, Y. Charan, N. M. Jyothi

Keywords:

Fraud detection; Credit card transactions; Machine learning models; Imbalanced data; AUC score

Abstract

This project addresses the critical issue of fraud detection in credit card transactions, an imperative conand cern for both financial institutions and cardholders. With the increasing sophistication of fraudulent activities, accurate identification and prevention of fraudulent transactions have become paramount. The study focuses on a dataset comprising credit card transactions conducted by European cardholders in September 2013. Notably, the dataset exhibits a severe class imbalance, with fraudulent transactions accounting for a mere 0.172% of the total. The primary objective of this research is to develop a robust machine-learning model capable of effectively discerning between legitimate and fraudulent transactions. The project commences with an extensive exploration of the dataset, encompassing checks for data imbalance, feature visualization, and analysis of feature interrelationships. Subsequently, four predictive models, including Random Forest, AdaBoost, Cat Boost, and XG Boost, were employed and evaluated. The dataset was partitioned into three subsets: a training set, a validation set, and a test set. Initial results showcased promising performance, with the Random Forest model yielding an Area Under the Curve (AUC) the core of 0.85 on the test set. The AdaBoost model achieved a slightly lower AUC score of 0.83, while the Cat Boost model, following 500 iterations, attained an AUC score of 0.86. The XG Boost model demonstrated exceptional promise, achieving a validation score of 0.984, and subsequently producing an AUC score of 0.974 on the test set.

Further, the project introduced a Light GBM model, leveraging both train-validation split and cross-validation methods. The former yielded AUC scores of approximately 0.974 on the validation set and 0.946 on the test set. Cross-validation exhibited a similar effectiveness, culminating in an AUC score of 0.93 on the test predictions. This study not only underscores the efficacy of employing advanced machine learning techniques in fraud detection but also emphasizes the importance of model selection and evaluation in the context of imbalanced data. The findings provide valuable insights for financial institutions seeking to bolster their fraud detection capabilities, ultimately enhancing the security and trust of credit card transactions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Correa Bahnsen, A., Aouada, D., Stojanovic, A., & Ottersten, B. (2016). Feature engineering strategies for credit card fraud detection. Expert Systems with Applications, 51, 134–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.12.030.

Anjali S. More, Dipti P. Rana, An Experimental Assessment of Random Forest Classification Performance Improvisation with Sampling and Stage Wise Success Rate Calculation, Procedia Computer Science, Volume 167, 2020, Pages 1711-1721, ISSN 1877-0509, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2020.03.381.

Song, Jie & Lu, Xiaoling & Wu, Xizhi. (2009). An Improved AdaBoost Algorithm for Unbalanced Classification Data. 109-113. 10.1109/FSKD.2009.608.

Oyedeji, Joseph. (2022). Comparative Assessment of Radom Forest, SVC and Cat Boost Performances as Property Price Forecasting Models. 1283-1289.

Sivanandam, Chakaravarthi & Perumal, Vaishnnave & Mohan, Jagadeesh. (2023). A novel light GBM-optimized long short-term memory for enhancing quality and security in web service recommendation system. The Journal of Supercomputing. 1-33. 10.1007/s11227-023-05552-1.

Zhou, Hong. (2023). Cross-Validation and ROC. 10.1007/978-1-4842-9771-1_5.

Tafvizi, Arya & Avci, Besim & Sundararajan, Mukund. (2022). Attributing AUC-ROC to Analyze Binary Classifier Performance. 10.48550/arXiv.2205.11781.

Karimi, Zohreh. (2021). Confusion Matrix.

Ehigie, Aimienrovbiye & Isenmilia, P. & Omoye, A.. (2023). Fraud Pentagon: Detection of Financial Statement Fraud in a Firm. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 14. 102. 10.36941/mjss-2023-0040.

Zhou, Qingwei & Qi, Yongjun & Tang, Hailin & Wu, Peng. (2023). Machine learning-based processing of unbalanced data sets for computer algorithms. Open Computer Science. 13. 10.1515/comp-2022-0273.

Nápoles, Gonzalo & Griffioen, Niels & Khoshrou, Samaneh & Guven, Cicek. (2023). Feature Importance for Clustering. 10.1007/978-3-031-49018-7_3.

Ferreira, Artur & Figueiredo, Mário. (2023). Leveraging Explainability with K-Fold Feature Selection. 10.5220/0011744400003411.

Oyedele, Opeoluwa. (2023). Determining the optimal number of folds to use in a K-fold cross-validation: A neural network classification experiment. Research in Mathematics. 10. 10.1080/27684830.2023.2201015.

Salian, Prof. (2023). Credit Card Fraudulent Transaction Detection and Prevention. International Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology. 11. 3255-3260. 10.22214/ijraset.2023.50849.

Reite, Endre J. & Oust, Are & Bang, Rebecca & Maurstad, Stine. (2023). Changes in credit score, transaction volume, customer characteristics, and the probability of detecting suspicious transactions. Journal of Money Laundering Control. 26. 10.1108/JMLC-06-2022-0087.

Werdiningsih, Indah & Purwanti, Endah & Aditya, Gede & Hidayat, Auliya & Athallah, R. & Sahar, Virda & Wibisono, Tio & Somba, Darren. (2023). Identifying Credit Card Fraud in Illegal Transactions Using Random Forest and Decision Tree Algorithms. Jurnal Sisfokom (Sistem Informasi dan Komputer). 12. 477-484. 10.32736/sisfokom.v12i3.1730.

Ghorbani, Ebrahim & Adoko, Amoussou & Yagiz, Saffet. (2023). Estimation of TBM Penetration rate using Gradient Boosting-based Algorithms.

Downloads

Published

12.06.2024

How to Cite

Vishwa Teja Manda. (2024). Imbalanced Data Challenges and Their Resolution to Improve Fraud Detection in Credit Card Transactions. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering, 12(4), 1478–1483. Retrieved from https://www.ijisae.org/index.php/IJISAE/article/view/6443

Issue

Section

Research Article