Data Leakage and Deceptive Performance: A Critical Examination of Credit Card Fraud Detection Methodologies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.02703v1
• Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2025 09:56:43 GMT
• Title: Data Leakage and Deceptive Performance: A Critical Examination of Credit Card Fraud Detection Methodologies
• Authors: Khizar Hayat, Baptiste Magnier,
• Abstract summary: This study critically examines the methodological rigor in credit card fraud detection research.<n>We demonstrate that even simple models can achieve deceptively impressive results when basic methodological principles are violated.
• Score: 2.6703221234079946
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: This study critically examines the methodological rigor in credit card fraud detection research, revealing how fundamental evaluation flaws can overshadow algorithmic sophistication. Through deliberate experimentation with improper evaluation protocols, we demonstrate that even simple models can achieve deceptively impressive results when basic methodological principles are violated. Our analysis identifies four critical issues plaguing current approaches: (1) pervasive data leakage from improper preprocessing sequences, (2) intentional vagueness in methodological reporting, (3) inadequate temporal validation for transaction data, and (4) metric manipulation through recall optimization at precision's expense. We present a case study showing how a minimal neural network architecture with data leakage outperforms many sophisticated methods reported in literature, achieving 99.9\% recall despite fundamental evaluation flaws. These findings underscore that proper evaluation methodology matters more than model complexity in fraud detection research. The study serves as a cautionary example of how methodological rigor must precede architectural sophistication, with implications for improving research practices across machine learning applications.

Related papers

• The Role of Review Process Failures in Affective State Estimation: An Empirical Investigation of DEAP Dataset [0.45080838507508303]
  We reviewed 101 studies, focusing on the widely used DEAP dataset for emotion recognition.<n>We found that nearly 87% of the reviewed papers contained one or more of these errors.<n>These findings reveal fundamental gaps in standardized evaluation practices and highlight critical deficiencies in the peer review process for machine learning applications in neuroscience.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-04T13:40:25Z)
• DATABench: Evaluating Dataset Auditing in Deep Learning from an Adversarial Perspective [59.66984417026933]
  We introduce a novel taxonomy, classifying existing methods based on their reliance on internal features (IF) (inherent to the data) versus external features (EF) (artificially introduced for auditing)<n>We formulate two primary attack types: evasion attacks, designed to conceal the use of a dataset, and forgery attacks, intending to falsely implicate an unused dataset.<n>Building on the understanding of existing methods and attack objectives, we further propose systematic attack strategies: decoupling, removal, and detection for evasion; adversarial example-based methods for forgery.<n>Our benchmark, DATABench, comprises 17 evasion attacks, 5 forgery attacks, and 9
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-08T03:07:15Z)
• Towards Reliable Forgetting: A Survey on Machine Unlearning Verification [26.88376128769619]
  This paper presents the first structured survey of machine unlearning verification methods.<n>We propose a taxonomy that organizes current techniques into two principal categories -- behavioral verification and parametric verification.<n>We examine their underlying assumptions, strengths, and limitations, and identify potential vulnerabilities in practical deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-18T03:33:59Z)
• Rectifying Privacy and Efficacy Measurements in Machine Unlearning: A New Inference Attack Perspective [42.003102851493885]
  We propose RULI (Rectified Unlearning Evaluation Framework via Likelihood Inference) to address critical gaps in the evaluation of inexact unlearning methods.<n>RULI introduces a dual-objective attack to measure both unlearning efficacy and privacy risks at a per-sample granularity.<n>Our findings reveal significant vulnerabilities in state-of-the-art unlearning methods, exposing privacy risks underestimated by existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T00:30:02Z)
• Causality can systematically address the monsters under the bench(marks) [64.36592889550431]
  Benchmarks are plagued by various biases, artifacts, or leakage.<n>Models may behave unreliably due to poorly explored failure modes.<n> causality offers an ideal framework to systematically address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-07T17:01:37Z)
• Pitfalls of topology-aware image segmentation [81.19923502845441]
  We identify critical pitfalls in model evaluation that include inadequate connectivity choices, overlooked topological artifacts, and inappropriate use of evaluation metrics.<n>We propose a set of actionable recommendations to establish fair and robust evaluation standards for topology-aware medical image segmentation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T08:11:42Z)
• Towards Reliable Empirical Machine Unlearning Evaluation: A Cryptographic Game Perspective [5.724350004671127]
  Machine unlearning updates machine learning models to remove information from specific training samples, complying with data protection regulations.<n>Despite the recent development of numerous unlearning algorithms, reliable evaluation of these algorithms remains an open research question.<n>This work presents a novel and reliable approach to empirically evaluating unlearning algorithms, paving the way for the development of more effective unlearning techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T17:20:27Z)
• A Discrepancy Aware Framework for Robust Anomaly Detection [51.710249807397695]
  We present a Discrepancy Aware Framework (DAF), which demonstrates robust performance consistently with simple and cheap strategies. Our method leverages an appearance-agnostic cue to guide the decoder in identifying defects, thereby alleviating its reliance on synthetic appearance. Under the simple synthesis strategies, it outperforms existing methods by a large margin. Furthermore, it also achieves the state-of-the-art localization performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T15:21:40Z)
• PULL: Reactive Log Anomaly Detection Based On Iterative PU Learning [58.85063149619348]
  We propose PULL, an iterative log analysis method for reactive anomaly detection based on estimated failure time windows. Our evaluation shows that PULL consistently outperforms ten benchmark baselines across three different datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-25T16:34:43Z)
• A Call to Reflect on Evaluation Practices for Failure Detection in Image Classification [0.491574468325115]
  We present a large-scale empirical study for the first time enabling benchmarking confidence scoring functions. The revelation of a simple softmax response baseline as the overall best performing method underlines the drastic shortcomings of current evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-28T12:25:27Z)
• Trust Your $\nabla$: Gradient-based Intervention Targeting for Causal Discovery [49.084423861263524]
  In this work, we propose a novel Gradient-based Intervention Targeting method, abbreviated GIT. GIT 'trusts' the gradient estimator of a gradient-based causal discovery framework to provide signals for the intervention acquisition function. We provide extensive experiments in simulated and real-world datasets and demonstrate that GIT performs on par with competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-24T17:04:45Z)
• Improving robustness of jet tagging algorithms with adversarial training [56.79800815519762]
  We investigate the vulnerability of flavor tagging algorithms via application of adversarial attacks. We present an adversarial training strategy that mitigates the impact of such simulated attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-25T19:57:19Z)
• Evaluating Causal Inference Methods [0.4588028371034407]
  We introduce a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods. Our work introduces a deep generative model-based framework, Credence, to validate causal inference methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-09T00:21:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.