DATA BALANCING IN NEURAL NETWORK-BASED FINANCIAL FRAUD DETECTION SYSTEMS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60022/3(6)-19SKeywords:
neural network, banking fraud, class imbalance, SMOTE, weighted classes, under-sampling, WDE (Weighted Detection Efficiency)Abstract
This paper investigates the critical problem of detecting fraudulent banking transactions under severe class imbalance conditions, which is a common challenge in modern financial data science. In real-world datasets, the number of legitimate transactions significantly outnumbers fraudulent ones, severely hindering the training process and predictive accuracy of machine learning algorithms. To address this issue, this study evaluates and compares four distinct training sample balancing strategies: the baseline approach (no balancing), class weighting, the Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE), and random under-sampling. The classification task is performed using an artificial neural network configured as a Multilayer Perceptron (MLP). Due to the extreme disproportion of classes, traditional evaluation metrics such as standard accuracy fail to provide an objective assessment of model performance. To overcome this limitation, the authors propose a novel metric — Weighted Detection Efficiency (WDE). This metric normalizes the overall quality of the model by incorporating the class imbalance coefficient, thereby enabling a statistically mathematically justified and correct comparison between different balancing techniques. Experimental results demonstrated that while the baseline model without any balancing achieved the highest nominal WDE value due to its high precision on the majority class, it suffered from a critically low recall rate, failing to detect the majority of actual fraud cases. On the other hand, resampling techniques provided a more robust representation of the minority class. The synthesis of the experimental data indicates that the SMOTE method delivers the optimal balance between precision and recall, significantly improving the model’s ability to identify fraudulent activities without generating an unacceptable volume of false positives. The findings of this research can be practically applied to enhance the reliability of automated anti-fraud monitoring systems in banking and financial institutions.
References
1. Payment Card Fraud Worldwide. Nilson Report. 2025. Vol. 1298. URL: https://nilsonreport.com/newsletters/1298 (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
2. Шахрайство з платіжними картками у 2025 році: кількість випадків знизилася, сума збитків — зросла. Національний банк України. URL: https://bank.gov.ua/ua/news/all/shahraystvo-z-platijnimi-kartkami-u-2025-rotsi-kilkist-vipadkiv-znizilasya-suma-zbitkiv--zrosla (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
3. CNP Fraud Prevention for Issuers. Nilson Report. URL: https://nilsonreport.com/articles/cnp-fraud-prevention-for-issuers (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
4. Goodfellow I., Bengio Y., Courville A. Deep Learning. Cambridge : MIT Press, 2016. 800 p.
5. Dal Pozzolo A., Caelen O., Johnson R. A., Bontempi G. Calibrating Probability with Undersampling for Unbalanced Classification. 2015 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI). Cape Town, South Africa, 2015. P. 159–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI.2015.33 (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
6. He H., Garcia E. A. Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. 2009. Vol. 21, No. 9. P. 1263–1284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2008.239 (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
7. Chawla N. V., Bowyer K. W., Hall L. O., Kegelmeyer W. P. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over- sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. 2002. Vol. 16. P. 321–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1613/jair.953 (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
8. Pedregosa F., Varoquaux G., Gramfort A. et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2011. Vol. 12. P. 2825–2830.
9. Lemaître G., Nogueira F., Aridas C. K. Imbalanced-learn: A Python Toolbox to Tackle the Curse of Imbalanced Datasets in Machine Learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2017. Vol. 18, No. 17. P. 1–5.
10. Phua C., Lee V., Smith K., Gayler R. A Comprehensive Survey of Data Mining-based Fraud Detection Research // arXiv. 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1009.6119 (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
11. Ling C. X., Li C. Data Mining for Direct Marketing: Problems and Solutions. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD-98). New York, USA, 1998. P. 73–79.
12. Wang C., Nie C., Liu Y. Evaluating Supervised Learning Models for Fraud Detection: A Comparative Study of Classical and Deep Architectures on Imbalanced Transaction Data. Proceedings of the International Conference on Management Innovation and Economic Development (MIED 2025). 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/978-94-6463-835-6_65 (дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
13. Credit Card Fraud Detection Dataset / U. L. Leborgne, G. Bontempi; Machine Learning Group, Université Libre de Bruxelles. Kaggle, 2023. – URL: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/mlg-ulb/creditcardfraud
(дата звернення: 23.04.2026).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Гліб Валерійович Пекуровський, Єгор Валерійович Пекуровський (Автор)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.