Content area
Financial fraud detection in real-time transactions has become a critical priority for financial institutions due to the exponential growth of digital payments and the increasing sophistication of fraudulent activities. Traditional fraud detection systems primarily relied on rule-based approaches and manual oversight. While these systems were initially effective, they have struggled to keep pace with evolving fraud techniques. Their rigidity often results in high false positives, delayed responses, and an inability to identify new or subtle fraud patterns. Early detection methods, such as statistical analysis and threshold-based systems, were limited in scope and failed to handle the complexity and dynamism of modern fraud. With the advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning, a new paradigm in fraud detection has emerged. AI-powered systems can analyze vast amounts of transaction data in real-time, learning from historical patterns and continuously improving their predictive accuracy. These models can detect anomalies and fraudulent behavior with significantly greater precision than traditional systems. Techniques such as support vector machines (SVM) and decision trees are particularly effective in identifying complex, non-linear relationships in data, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of fraud indicators. The primary motivation for implementing Al-based solutions is the urgent need for real-time, automated fraud detection systems that can operate at scale, minimize human error, and reduce financial losses. These intelligent systems offer enhanced adaptability to emerging fraud techniques, lower false positive rates, and improved scalability, making them ideal for today's fast-paced digital financial ecosystem. By processing transactions instantaneously, the proposed system enables proactive fraud mitigation, ensuring secure and reliable financial operations.
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 05-02-2025
Accepted: 13-03-2025
ABSTRACT
Financial fraud detection in real-time transactions has become a critical priority for financial institutions due to the exponential growth of digital payments and the increasing sophistication of fraudulent activities. Traditional fraud detection systems primarily relied on rule-based approaches and manual oversight. While these systems were initially effective, they have struggled to keep pace with evolving fraud techniques. Their rigidity often results in high false positives, delayed responses, and an inability to identify new or subtle fraud patterns. Early detection methods, such as statistical analysis and threshold-based systems, were limited in scope and failed to handle the complexity and dynamism of modern fraud. With the advancement of artificial intelligence and machine learning, a new paradigm in fraud detection has emerged. AI-powered systems can analyze vast amounts of transaction data in real-time, learning from historical patterns and continuously improving their predictive accuracy. These models can detect anomalies and fraudulent behavior with significantly greater precision than traditional systems. Techniques such as support vector machines (SVM) and decision trees are particularly effective in identifying complex, non-linear relationships in data, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of fraud indicators. The primary motivation for implementing Al-based solutions is the urgent need for real-time, automated fraud detection systems that can operate at scale, minimize human error, and reduce financial losses. These intelligent systems offer enhanced adaptability to emerging fraud techniques, lower false positive rates, and improved scalability, making them ideal for today's fast-paced digital financial ecosystem. By processing transactions instantaneously, the proposed system enables proactive fraud mitigation, ensuring secure and reliable financial operations.
Keywords: Support Vector Machines (SVM), Decision Trees, Automated Fraud Detection, Digital Finance Security, Data-Driven Systems, Scalable Fraud Detection, Adaptive Systems
1. INTRODUCTION
The rise in digital financial transactions has led to a corresponding increase in fraudulent activities, posing significant challenges to the security and integrity of financial systems. Traditional fraud detection methods, which rely heavily on static rules and manual processes, often fall short in identifying evolving fraud tactics promptly, resulting in delayed responses, increased financial losses, and compromised security. This research aims to address these limitations by developing an AI-based system for real-time financial fraud detection. Leveraging machine learning algorithms, the proposed system can analyze large volumes of transaction data instantaneously to identify anomalies and detect potential fraud with greater accuracy and speed. Existing systems, being largely reactive and ruledependent, lack the adaptability required to respond to sophisticated and dynamic fraudulent schemes. In contrast, AI-driven systems offer enhanced scalability, real-time processing capabilities, and the ability to learn from historical data to identify complex fraud patterns. The core motivation behind this research is to harness the power of artificial intelligence to improve the efficiency, accuracy, and responsiveness of fraud detection mechanisms. By doing so, the research seeks to develop a robust solution that not only enhances the security of financial transactions but also addresses the pressing need for intelligent, automated fraud prevention in today's rapidly evolving digital landscape.
2. LITERATURE SURVEY
Akinrinola et al. [1] delve into the ethical challenges in AT development, emphasizing the necessity for transparency, fairness, and accountability. They propose strategies to navigate these dilemmas, highlighting the importance of ethical guidelines and robust governance frameworks to ensure responsible АТ deployment. Alexopoulos et al. [2] present a comprehensive roadmap for implementing predictive maintenance technologies in production systems. They discuss the integration of IoT devices and data analytics to predict equipment failures, aiming to enhance operational efficiency and reduce downtime in industrial settings. Amarappa and Sathyanarayana [3] offer a simplified approach to data classification using Support Vector Machines (SVM). They explain the mathematical foundations of SVM and demonstrate its effectiveness in handling complex classification tasks, making it accessible for practitioners in various fields. Angelopoulos et al. [4] survey machine learning solutions addressing faults in the Industry 4.0 era. They identify key aspects such as real-time monitoring, anomaly detection, and predictive analytics, underscoring the role of AI in maintaining system integrity and optimizing industrial processes. Bhatla et al. [5] provide an in-depth understanding of credit card frauds, analyzing common fraud patterns and the challenges in detection. They discuss the limitations of traditional methods and advocate for advanced analytical techniques to effectively combat fraudulent activities.
Blom and Niemann [6] explore reputational risk management during supply chain disruption recovery from a triadic logistics outsourcing perspective. They emphasize the importance of communication, trust, and collaboration among stakeholders to mitigate reputational damage and ensure business continuity. Bonatti et al. [7] discuss rule-based policy representations and reasoning in the context of semantic web technologies. They highlight the advantages of using rule-based systems for policy enforcement, enabling more dynamic and adaptable decision -making processes in digital environments. Chatterjee et al. [8] examine the application of digital twin technology for credit card fraud detection. They identify opportunities and challenges, suggesting that digital twins can enhance real-time monitoring and detection capabilities, thereby improving fraud prevention strategies. Kak [9] investigates the evolution of Zero Trust security models and their impact on transforming enterprise security. The study underscores the shift from traditional perimeter-based security to a more robust, identity-centric approach, enhancing protection against sophisticated cyber threats. Kamuangu [10] reviews the use of АТ and machine learning in financial fraud detection. The study highlights various algorithms and their effectiveness in identifying fraudulent activities, advocating for the integration of Al to enhance accuracy and efficiency in fraud detection systems.
Kaur and Gill [11] provide insights into artificial intelligence and deep learning for decision-makers. They offer a guide to cutting-edge technologies, discussing their applications, benefits, and the strategic considerations necessary for successful implementation in business contexts. Perols [12] analyzes statistical and machine learning algorithms for financial statement fraud detection. The study compares different methods, concluding that machine learning approaches often outperform traditional statistical techniques in detecting fraudulent financial reporting. Radanliev and Santos [13] discuss how adversarial attacks can deceive AI systems, leading to misclassification or incorrect decisions. They emphasize the need for robust AI models and security measures to defend against such vulnerabilities, ensuring the reliability of AI applications. Sodemann et al. [14] review anomaly detection in automated surveillance systems. They explore various techniques and their effectiveness in identifying unusual activities, contributing to the development of more reliable and intelligent surveillance solutions.
3. PROPOSED SYSTEM
The proposed system aims to detect fraudulent financial transactions using machine learning techniques, specifically Support Vector Machines (SVM). By leveraging historical transaction data, the system identifies patterns indicative of fraud, enabling real-time detection and prevention. The implementation involves several key steps
Step 1: Fraud Transaction Dataset
The foundation of the system is a comprehensive dataset containing records of both legitimate and fraudulent transactions. This dataset includes various features such as transaction amount, time, location, and merchant details. For instance, the Credit Card Fraud Detection dataset from Kaggle comprises transactions made by European cardholders in September 2013, with 492 frauds out of 284,807 transactions. Such datasets are instrumental in training machine learning models to distinguish between normal and suspicious activities.
Step 2: Dataset Preprocessing
Data preprocessing is crucial to enhance the quality and relevance of the dataset. This involves handling missing values, which can be addressed by imputation or removal, and transforming categorical variables into numerical formats through techniques like label encoding. Standardization is also applied to ensure that features have a consistent scale, which is essential for the effective performance of SVM algorithms.
Step 3: Proposed SVM Algorithm
Support Vector Machines are employed to create a model that separates fraudulent transactions from legitimate ones. The SVM algorithm identifies the optimal hyperplane that maximizes the margin between the two classes in a high-dimensional space. This approach is effective for binary classification tasks, such as fraud detection, due to its ability to handle complex, non-linear relationships between features. Studies have demonstrated the efficacy of SVM in fraud detection, achieving high accuracy and f-score metrics
Step 4: Performance Comparison
After training the SVM model, its performance is evaluated against other machine learning algorithms like Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, and Neural Networks. Metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and f-score are used to assess the model's effectiveness in detecting fraud. Comparative analysis helps in understanding the strengths and limitations of each algorithm, guiding the selection of the most suitable model for deployment.
3.2 Data Splitting & Preprocessing
The dataset is divided into training and testing subsets, typically using an 80-20 split. The training set is used to build the model, while the testing set evaluates its performance on unseen data. Preprocessing steps include:
* Null Value Removal: Identifying and handling missing or null values to prevent inaccuracies in model training.
* Label Encoding: Converting categorical variables into numerical values to facilitate processing by the algorithm.
* Standardization: Scaling features to have zero mean and unit variance, ensuring that the model treats all features equally.
3.3 ML Model Building
Building the machine learning model involves selecting the appropriate algorithm, in this case, SVM, and training it on the pre-processed dataset. The model learns to identify patterns associated with fraudulent transactions by analyzing the relationships between different features. Hyperparameter tuning is performed to optimize the model's performance, and cross-validation techniques are employed to ensure its generalizability to new, unseen data.
3.3.1 Proposed Algorithm
Support Vector Machines (SVMs) are supervised machine learning algorithms used for classification and regression tasks. They operate by identifying the optimal hyperplane that separates data points of different classes in an N-dimensional space. This hyperplane maximizes the margin between classes, enhancing the model's ability to generalize to new data.
SVMs aim to find the hyperplane that best divides a dataset into classes. In two-dimensional space, this hyperplane is a line; in higher dimensions, it becomes a plane or hyperplane. The data points closest to this hyperplane are termed support vectors, and they are critical in defining the position and orientation of the hyperplane. By maximizing the margin-the distance between the hyperplane and the nearest data points from each class-SVMs strive to improve classification accuracy. For datasets that are not linearly separable, SVMs employ kernel functions to map data into higher-dimensional spaces where a separating hyperplane can be identified.
1. Input Layer: Receives the feature set of the data.
2. Kernel Function (if applicable): Transforms the input data into a higher-dimensional space to facilitate separation when data is not linearly separable.
3. Optimization Module: Determines the optimal hyperplane by solving a quadratic programming problem that maximizes the margin between classes.
4. Output Layer: Produces the classification result based on which side of the hyperplane the input resides.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Dataset Description
The dataset in question is the IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection dataset, which comprises real-world ecommerce transactions provided by Vesta Corporation. This dataset is structured into two primary tables: transaction data and identity data, each containing various features pertinent to transaction and user information.
Transaction Data:
* TransactionID: A unique identifier for each transaction.
* is Fraud: A binary indicator where '1' denotes a fraudulent transaction and 'o' denotes a legitimate one.
* TransactionDT: A numeric value representing the time elapsed from a reference point, not an actual timestamp.
* TransactionAmt: The amount of the transaction in USD.
* ProductCD: A categorical feature representing the product code associated with the transaction.
* cardi-cardó: Features containing payment card information, such as card type, issuer, and country.
* addri, addr2: Features representing billing address information.
* disti, dist2: Features indicating distances, potentially between user addresses and transaction locations.
* P emaildomain: The purchaser's email domain.
* R emaildomain: The recipient's email domain.
* C1 - C14: Counting features, possibly indicating the frequency of certain events or attributes related to the transaction.
* D1 - D15: Time delta features, which represent intervals between events or transactions.
* Mi - Mg: Match indicators, potentially signifying matches between different pieces of information (e.g., billing and shipping addresses).
* V1 - V339: A set of engineered features by Vesta, encompassing various statistical and relational attributes.
Identity Data:
* TransactionID: A unique identifier that links to the transaction data.
* id o1-id 38: Features containing identity information, such as network connection details (e.g., IP address, ISP), device information, and digital signatures (e.g., browser, operating system).
* JDeviceType: A categorical feature indicating the type of device used (e.g., mobile, desktop).
* DeviceInfo: Information about the specific device used for the transaction
4.2 Result and Description
This Figure shows the user interface (UI) of a web application designed for Al-based financial fraud detection in real-time transactions.
Here's a breakdown of the elements and their potential functions:
* Financial Fraud Detection : Clearly states the application's purpose.
* Home and User Login: Navigation links for accessing different sections of the application.
* User Login: Users likely need to log in to access the application's features and dashboards.
* Real-time Transaction Monitoring: The application likely monitors financial transactions in real-time, analyzing them for suspicious patterns and anomalies.
* Fraud Detection: The AI algorithms identify potentially fraudulent transactions based on predefined rules and learned patterns.
The login form, accessible via the "Login" button on the homepage, presents a straightforward and secure interface for returning users. It consists of two primary input fields: "Username" and "Password." The "Username" field prompts users to enter the unique username they created during the signup process. The "Password" field, appropriately masked for security, requires users to input the corresponding password associated with their account. Below these fields, a prominent "login" button allows users to submit their credentials for verification. Upon successful authentication, users are granted access to their personalized accounts and the platform's mental health support services.
Figure 4 shows a portion of a web application interface for AI-based financial fraud detection.
Key visible elements:
* Header: "Al-Based Financial Fraud Detection in Real-Time Transactions" (partially visible) clearly states the application's purpose.
* Tab Navigation: Tabs labeled "Load 8% Process Dataset," "Process Mining," and "Run ML Algorithm" suggest a workflow-oriented approach, guiding the user through the data processing and model training stages. The "Load & Process Dataset" tab is currently active.
* Dataset Loader Module: This section provides functionality for uploading and managing the dataset used for fraud detection. It includes:
o "Browse Dataset" button: Triggers a file selection dialog (shown overlaid).
o File Path Display: Shows the currently selected file path (in this case, "C: Users... Downloads Vfraud_transaction.csv').
o "Submit" button: Likely initiates the dataset loading and processing procedure.
* File Selection Dialog: An open file explorer window titled "Select dataset" is overlaid, allowing the user to navigate their file system and choose the dataset file. A file named "fraud transaction.csv" has been selected.
Figure 5 shows the data preview section of a dataset loader module in a financial fraud detection application. It confirms that a dataset has been loaded and provides a glimpse into the data's structure, including transaction IDs, fraud labels, amounts, and other anonymized features. The large number of columns suggests a rich dataset with many potential factors used for fraud detection.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the performance of two machine learning algorithms: Propose SVM and Extension Random Forest.
Columns: The table displays four key performance metrics for each algorithm:
* Algorithm Name: The name of the algorithm being evaluated.
* Accuracy: The overall correctness of the model's predictions.
* Precision: The proportion of true positives among the instances predicted as positive.
* Recall: The proportion of true positives among the actual positive instances.
* FSCORE (F1-Score): The harmonic mean of precision and recall, providing a balanced measure.
Rows:
* Propose SVM: Shows the performance metrics for the proposed Support Vector Machine algorithm.
* Extension Random Forest: Shows the performance metrics for the extended Random Forest algorithm.
* Values: The table cells contain the calculated values for each metric. For example, the "Propose SVM" has an accuracy of 89.54%, while the "Extension Random Forest" has an accuracy of 99.09%.
Figure 7 shows the data loading phase of a financial fraud detection application. Users can select a dataset file, which will then be loaded and processed. The application will use process mining and machine learning algorithms to detect fraudulent transactions, and the "Detect Fraud Module" allows for testing the model on a separate dataset. The interface is designed to guide users through the process of data loading, model training, and evaluation.
Figure 8 shows the data is formatted in a way that's difficult to read directly, possibly representing anonymized or encoded transaction details. There are several rows visible, each with a long string of characters (likely representing numerical and/or categorical data). The rightmost column shows the outcome of the fraud detection process for each test case. The visible results are either Fraud or Normal.
5. CONCLUSION
The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into financial fraud detection systems has significantly enhanced the ability of institutions to identify and prevent fraudulent activities. Traditional rule-based systems, while effective to a degree, often struggle to keep pace with the evolving tactics of fraudsters. Al-driven models, particularly those utilizing machine learning algorithms, offer a dynamic and adaptive approach to fraud detection. These systems can process vast amounts of transaction data in real-time, identifying complex patterns and anomalies that indicate fraudulent behavior. This capability not only improves detection rates but also reduces false positives, thereby enhancing operational efficiency and customer satisfaction.
The financial sector has witnessed a substantial shift towards AI-powered solutions, with the AI in fraud detection market projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 24.5%, reaching approximately USD 108.3 billion by 2033. This growth underscores the increasing reliance on Al technologies to safeguard financial transactions. Institutions adopting these advanced systems benefit from real-time analysis, scalability, and the ability to adapt to new fraud patterns without extensive manual intervention. Moreover, Al's capacity to learn from historical data enables continuous improvement in detection capabilities, making it a formidable tool against sophisticated fraud schemes.
REFERENCES
[1] Akinrinola, O., Okoye, C. C., Ofodile, O. C., & Ugochukwu, C. E. (2024). Navigating and reviewing ethical dilemmas in AI development: Strategies for transparency, fairness, and accountability. GSC Advanced Research and Reviews, 18(3), 050-058.
[2] Alexopoulos, K., Hribrenik, K., Surico, M., Nikolakis, N., Al-Najjar, B., Keraron, Y., Duarte, M., Zalonis, A. and Makris, S., 2021. Predictive maintenance technologies for production systems: A roadmap to development and implementation.
[3] Amarappa, S., & Sathyanarayana, S. U. (2014). Data classification using Support vector Machine (SVM), a simplified approach. Int. J. Electron. Comput. Sci. Eng, 3, 435-445. Angelopoulos, A., Michailidis, Е. T., Nomikos, N., Trakadas, P., Hatziefremidis, A,
[4] Voliotis, S., & Zahariadis, T. (2019). Tackling faults in the industry 4.0 era-a survey of machinelearning solutions and key aspects. Sensors, 20(1), 109.
[5] Bhatla, T. P., Prabhu, V., & Dua, A. (2003). Understanding credit card frauds. Cards business review, 1(6), 1-15.
[6] Blom, T., & Niemann, W. (2022). Managing reputational risk during supply chain disruption recovery: A triadic logistics outsourcing perspective.
[7] Bonatti, P. A., De Coi, J. L., Olmedilla, D., & Sauro, L. (2009). Rule-based policy representations and reasoning. In Semantic Techniques for the Web: The REWERSE Perspective (pp. 201232). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[8] Chatterjee, P., Das, D., & Rawat, D. B. (2024). Digital twin for credit card fraud detection: Opportunities, challenges, and fraud detection advancements. Future Generation Computer Systems.
[9] Kak, S. (2022). Zero Trust Evolution & Transforming Enterprise Security (Doctoral dissertation, California State University San Marcos).
[10] Kamuangu, P. (2024). A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting Studies, 6(1), 67-77.
[11] Kaur, J., & Gill, N. S. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and deep learning for decision makers: a growth hacker's guide to cutting edge technologies. BPB Publications.
[12] Perols, J. (2011). Financial statement fraud detection: An analysis of statistical and machine learning algorithms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 19-50.
[13]Radanliev, P., & Santos, O. (2023). Adversarial Attacks Can Deceive Al Systems, Leading to Misclassification or Incorrect Decisions.
[14]odemann, A. A., Ross, M. P., & Borghetti, B. J. (2012). A review of anomaly detection in automated surveillance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews), 42(6), 1257-1272.
Copyright Kohat University of Science and Technology (KUST) 2025