On the Black-Box Challenge for Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning (II): Nonlinear Analysis through Interpretable Autoencoders
Source abstract
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently intensified in the global economy due to the great competence that it has demonstrated for analysis and modeling in many disciplines. This situation is accelerating the shift towards a more automated society, where these new techniques can be consolidated as a valid tool to face the difficult challenge of credit fraud detection (CFD). However, tight regulations do not make it easy for financial entities to comply with them while using modern techniques. From a methodological perspective, autoencoders have demonstrated their effectiveness in discovering nonlinear features across several problem domains. However, autoencoders are opaque and often seen as black boxes. In this work, we propose an interpretable and agnostic methodology for CFD. This type of approach allows a double advantage: on the one hand, it can be applied together with any machine learning (ML) technique, and on the other hand, it offers the necessary traceability between inputs and outputs, hence escaping from the black-box model. We first applied the state-of-the-art feature selection technique defined in the companion paper. Second, we proposed a novel technique, based on autoencoders, capable of evaluating the relationship among input and output of a sophisticated ML model for each and every one of the samples that are submitted to the analysis, through a single transaction-level explanation (STE) approach. This technique allows each instance to be analyzed individually by applying small fluctuations of the input space and evaluating how it is triggered in the output, thereby shedding light on the underlying dynamics of the model. Based on this, an individualized transaction ranking (ITR) can be formulated, leveraging on the contributions of each feature through STE. These rankings represent a close estimate of the most important features playing a role in the decision process. The results obtained in this work were consistent with previous published papers, and showed that certain features, such as living beyond means, lack or absence of transaction trail, and car loans, have strong influence on the model outcome. Additionally, this proposal using the latent space outperformed, in terms of accuracy, our previous results, which already improved prior published papers, by 5.5% and 1.5% for the datasets under study, from a baseline of 76% and 93%. The contribution of this paper is twofold, as far as a new outperforming CFD classification model is presented, and at the same time, we developed a novel methodology, applicable across classification techniques, that allows to breach black-box models, erasingthe dependencies and, eventually, undesirable biases. We conclude that it is possible to develop an effective, individualized, unbiased, and traceable ML technique, not only to comply with regulations, but also to be able to cope with transaction-level inquiries from clients and authorities.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques · Financial Distress and Bankruptcy Prediction · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Signal Theory and Communications, Telematics and Computing Systems, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28942 Madrid, Spain
Department of Signal Theory and Communications, Universidad Miguel Hernández, 03202 Elche, Spain
Institute of Data, Complex Networks and Cybersecurity Sciences (DCNC Sciences), Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, 28028 Madrid, Spain
Funding
Agencia Estatal de Investigación of Science and Innovation Ministry
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Chaquet-Ulldemolins, J., Gimeno-Blanes, F.J., Moral-Rubio, S., Muñoz-Romero, S., and Rojo-Álvarez, J.L. (2022). On the Black-Box Challenge for Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning (I): Linear Models and Informative Feature Selection. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app12073328 ↗
2. Buchanan, B.G. (2019). Artificial Intelligence In Finance, The Alan Turing Institute. Technical Report.
3. Pascual, A. (2015). Future Proof Card Authorization, Javelin Strategy & Research. Technical Report.
4. Credit Card Fraud Detection using Machine Learning Algorithms10.1016/j.procs.2020.01.057 ↗
5. Anomaly Detection: A Survey10.1145/1541880.1541882 ↗
6. Ana, F. (2019). Artificial Intelligence In Financial Services, Banco de España. Technical Report.
7. New Trend in Fintech: Research on Artificial Intelligence Model Interpretability in Financial Fields10.4236/ojapps.2019.910062 ↗
8. Some financial regulatory implications of artificial intelligence10.1016/j.jeconbus.2018.05.003 ↗
9. Chen, C., Lin, K., Rudin, C., Shaposhnik, Y., Wang, S., and Wang, T. (2018). An Interpretable Model with Globally Consistent Explanations for Credit Risk. arXiv.
10. Wedge, R., Kanter, J.M., Veeramachaneni, K., Rubio, S.M., and Perez, S.I. (2019). Solving the False Positives Problem in Fraud Prediction Using Automated Feature Engineering. Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Springer.10.1007/978-3-030-10997-4_23 ↗
11. (2019). Machine Learning in UK Financial Services, Bank of England. Technical Report.
12. Carvalho, D., Pereira, E., and Cardoso, J. (2019). Machine Learning Interpretability: A Survey on Methods and Metrics. Electronics, 8.10.3390/electronics8080832 ↗
13. Informative variable identifier: Expanding interpretability in feature selection10.1016/j.patcog.2019.107077 ↗
14. Fraud Detection in Debit Card Transactions
15. SoulMate: Short-text author linking through Multi-aspect temporal-textual embedding
16. Hosseini, S., Pour, S.N., Cheung, N., Kangavari, M.R., Zhou, X., and Elovici, Y. (2019, August 24). TEALS: Time-Aware Text Embedding Approach to Leverage Subgraphs, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1907.03191.
17. Arora, S., Li, Y., Liang, Y., Ma, T., and Risteski, A. (2019, June 19). Random Walks on Context Spaces: Towards an Explanation of the Mysteries of Semantic Word Embeddings, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1502.03520.
18. Dimitri, G.M., Spasov, S., Duggento, A., Passamonti, L., Lio’, P., and Toschi, N. (2020, January 20–24). Unsupervised stratification in neuroimaging through deep latent embeddings. Proceedings of the 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine Biology Society (EMBC), Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9175810 ↗
19. Unsupervised word embeddings capture latent knowledge from materials science literature10.1038/s41586-019-1335-8 ↗
20. Discovering prerequisite relations from educational documents through word embeddings10.1016/j.future.2021.08.021 ↗
21. Pancino, N., Graziani, C., Lachi, V., Sampoli, M.L., Stefanescu, E., Bianchini, M., and Dimitri, G.M. (2021). A Mixed Statistical and Machine Learning Approach for the Analysis of Multimodal Trail Making Test Data. Mathematics, 9.10.3390/math9243159 ↗
22. Dynamic fine-tuning stacked auto-encoder neural network for weather forecast10.1016/j.future.2018.06.052 ↗
23. Greedy layer-wise training of deep networks
24. Bank, D., Koenigstein, N., and Giryes, R. (2021, April 03). Autoencoders, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/2003.05991.
25. Norlander, E., and Sopasakis, A. (2019, November 28). Latent Space Conditioning for Improved Classification and Anomaly Detection, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1911.10599.
26. Zamini, M., and Montazer, G. (2018, January 17–19). Credit Card Fraud Detection using autoencoder based clustering. Proceedings of the 2018 9th International Symposium on Telecommunications (IST), Tehran, Iran.10.1109/ISTEL.2018.8661129 ↗
27. Zou, J., Zhang, J., and Jiang, P. (2019, August 30). Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Autoencoder Neural Network, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1908.11553.
28. Comprehensible classification models: A position paper10.1145/2594473.2594475 ↗
29. Ribeiro, M., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, August 09). Why Should I Trust You? Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1602.04938.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
30. Bertsimas, D., Delarue, A., Jaillet, P., and Martin, S. (2019, July 08). The Price of Interpretability, Available online: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1907.03419.
31. Efficient Feature Selection via Analysis of Relevance and Redundancy
32. A review of feature selection and its methods
33. Bellman, R. (1961). Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. (A RAND Corporation Research Study), Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400874668 ↗
34. Chen, L. (2009). Curse of Dimensionality, Springer.10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9_133 ↗
35. Feature Extraction by Non Parametric Mutual Information Maximization
36. Wrappers for feature subset selection10.1016/S0004-3702(97)00043-X ↗
37. Chen, X., and Jeong, J.C. (2007, January 13–15). Enhanced recursive feature elimination. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications, University, OH, USA.10.1109/ICMLA.2007.35 ↗
38. Feature selection for classification: A review
39. Dua, D., and Graff, C. (1994, November 17). UCI Machine Learning Repository. Data Retrieved from UCI. Available online: https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/statlog+(german+credit+data).
40. Lopez-Rojas, E.A., Elmir, A., and Axelsson, S. (2016, January 26–28). Paysim: A Financial Mobile Money Simulator for Fraud Detection. Proceedings of the 28th European Modeling and Simulation Symposium, Larnaca, Cyprus.
41. Brause, R., Langsdorf, T., and Hepp, M. (1999, January 9–11). Neural data mining for credit card fraud detection. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Chicago, IL, USA.
42. Schölkopf, B., Platt, J., and Hofmann, T. (2007). Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference (Bradford Books), The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/7503.001.0001 ↗
43. Autoencoders, Unsupervised Learning, and Deep Architectures
44. Bengio, Y., Guyon, G., Dror, V., Lemaire, G., Taylor, D., and Silver, D. (2011, January 27). Deep Learning of Representations for Unsupervised and Transfer Learning. Proceedings of the ICML Workshop on Unsupervised and Transfer Learning, Bellevue, WA, USA.
45. Käding, C., Rodner, E., Freytag, A., and Denzler, J. (2016, January 20–24). Fine-Tuning Deep Neural Networks in Continuous Learning Scenarios. Proceedings of the Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Taipei, Taiwan.10.1007/978-3-319-54526-4_43 ↗
46. Analyzing the Performance of Multilayer Neural Networks for Object Recognition
47. Credit Card Fraud Detection using Deep Learning based on Auto-Encoder and Restricted Boltzmann Machine
48. Gonzalez, J., Holder, L., and Cook, D. (2000, January 22–24). Graph Based Concept Learning. Proceedings of the FLAIRS Conference, Orlando, FL, USA.
49. Raising the Red Flags: The Concept and Indicators of Occupational Fraud
50. Red Flags for Fraud. State of New York Office of the State Comptroller