Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 625

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

Awoyemi, John O., Adetunmbi, Adebayo O., Oluwadare, Samuel A.·2017·2017 International Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics (ICCNI)

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/iccni.2017.8123782

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 625

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.