Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Comparison Study of Credit Card Fraud Detection: Supervised versus Unsupervised

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1904.10604 v1 pith:4KUSWBKZ submitted 2019-04-24 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords modelssupervisedunsupervisedauroccardcreditdetectionfraud
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Credit card has become popular mode of payment for both online and offline purchase, which leads to increasing daily fraud transactions. An Efficient fraud detection methodology is therefore essential to maintain the reliability of the payment system. In this study, we perform a comparison study of credit card fraud detection by using various supervised and unsupervised approaches. Specifically, 6 supervised classification models, i.e., Logistic Regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), Decision Tree (DT), Random Forest (RF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), as well as 4 unsupervised anomaly detection models, i.e., One-Class SVM (OCSVM), Auto-Encoder (AE), Restricted Boltzmann Machine (RBM), and Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN), are explored in this study. We train all these models on a public credit card transaction dataset from Kaggle website, which contains 492 frauds out of 284,807 transactions. The labels of the transactions are used for supervised learning models only. The performance of each model is evaluated through 5-fold cross validation in terms of Area Under the Receiver Operating Curves (AUROC). Within supervised approaches, XGB and RF obtain the best performance with AUROC = 0.989 and AUROC = 0.988, respectively. While for unsupervised approaches, RBM achieves the best performance with AUROC = 0.961, followed by GAN with AUROC = 0.954. The experimental results show that supervised models perform slightly better than unsupervised models in this study. Anyway, unsupervised approaches are still promising for credit card fraud transaction detection due to the insufficient annotation and the data imbalance issue in real-world applications.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Toward Auditable Fraud Detection: Combining Graph Features, Model Explanations, and Agentic Case Investigation

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    On PaySim, graph and autoencoder signals improve fraud ranking only among mid-confidence cases, and a bounded LLM agent underperforms direct classifier thresholding.

Pith tools