The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Credit card fraud detection using machine learning techniques: A comparative analysis
Abstract
Financial fraud is an ever growing menace with far consequences in the financial industry. Data mining had played an imperative role in the detection of credit card fraud in online transactions. Credit card fraud detection, which is a data mining problem, becomes challenging due to two major reasons - first, the profiles of normal and fraudulent behaviours change constantly and secondly, credit card fraud data sets are highly skewed. The performance of fraud detection in credit card transactions is greatly affected by the sampling approach on dataset, selection of variables and detection technique(s) used. This paper investigates the performance of naïve bayes, k-nearest neighbor and logistic regression on highly skewed credit card fraud data. Dataset of credit card transactions is sourced from European cardholders containing 284,807 transactions. A hybrid technique of under-sampling and oversampling is carried out on the skewed data. The three techniques are applied on the raw and preprocessed data. The work is implemented in Python. The performance of the techniques is evaluated based on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, precision, Matthews correlation coefficient and balanced classification rate. The results shows of optimal accuracy for naïve bayes, k-nearest neighbor and logistic regression classifiers are 97.92%, 97.69% and 54.86% respectively. The comparative results show that k-nearest neighbour performs better than naïve bayes and logistic regression techniques.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Data mining for credit card fraud: a comparative study
Bhattacharyya, S., Jha, S., Tharakunnel, K., & Westland, J. C. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.008 · Cited by 1,108 · cited 3×
“This paper [13] evaluates two advanced data mining approaches, support vector machines and random forests, together with logistic regression, as part of an attempt to better detect credit card fraud while neural network and logistic regression is applied on credit card fraud detection problem [14].”
MethodCalibrating Probability with Undersampling for Unbalanced Classification
Pozzolo, A. D., Caelen, O., Johnson, R. A., & Bontempi, G. (2015) · 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1109/ssci.2015.33 · Cited by 667 · cited 2×
“The dataset is sourced from ULB Machine Learning Group and description is found in [32].”
Method
Cited by
f-AnoGAN: Fast unsupervised anomaly detection with generative adversarial networks
Schlegl, T., Seeböck, P., Waldstein, S. M., Langs, G., & Schmidt-Erfurth, U. (2019) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2019.01.010 · Cited by 1,545
Financial fraud detection applying data mining techniques: A comprehensive review from 2009 to 2019
Al-Hashedi, K. G., & Magalingam, P. (2021) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100402 · Cited by 375
Credit Card Fraud Detection - Machine Learning methods
Varmedja, D., Karanovic, M., Sladojevic, S., Arsenovic, M., & Anderla, A. (2019) · 2019 18th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH) · doi:10.1109/infoteh.2019.8717766 · Cited by 323
Herman, D., Googin, C., Liu, X., Sun, Y., Galda, A., Safro, I., Pistoia, M., & Alexeev, Y. (2023) · Nature Reviews Physics · doi:10.1038/s42254-023-00603-1 · Cited by 284
AI ethics: from principles to practice
Zhou, J., & Chen, F. (2023) · AI & SOCIETY · doi:10.1007/s00146-022-01602-z · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Awoyemi, J. O., Adetunmbi, A. O., & Oluwadare, S. A.
- Venue
- 2017 International Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics (ICCNI)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2017-10
- Pages
- 1-9
- OpenAlex
- W2772947247
- Cited by
- 625
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 10.29
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Credit card fraud detection using machine learning techniques: A comparative analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/iccni.2017.8123782
- The paper
- Awoyemi, J. O., Adetunmbi, A. O., & Oluwadare, S. A. (2017). Credit card fraud detection using machine learning techniques: A comparative analysis. 2017 International Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics (ICCNI). https://doi.org/10.1109/iccni.2017.8123782
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.