International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research
E-ISSN: 2582-2160
•
Impact Factor: 9.24
A Widely Indexed Open Access Peer Reviewed Multidisciplinary Bi-monthly Scholarly International Journal
Home
Research Paper
Submit Research Paper
Publication Guidelines
Publication Charges
Upload Documents
Track Status / Pay Fees / Download Publication Certi.
Editors & Reviewers
View All
Join as a Reviewer
Get Membership Certificate
Current Issue
Publication Archive
Conference
Publishing Conf. with IJFMR
Upcoming Conference(s) ↓
Conferences Published ↓
DePaul-2026
IC-AIRCM-T3-2026
NSSFIGTMA-2025
SPHERE-2025
AIMAR-2025
SVGASCA-2025
ICRTET-4
ICCE-2025
Chinai-2023
PIPRDA-2023
ICMRS'23
Contact Us
Plagiarism is checked by the leading plagiarism checker
Call for Paper
Volume 8 Issue 5
September-October 2026
Indexing Partners
Temporal Evaluation of Gradient Boosting and Autoencoder Models for Credit Card Fraud Detection
| Author(s) | Arnav Thakur |
|---|---|
| Country | United States |
| Abstract | Payment card fraud losses exceeded US$33 billion worldwide in 2022, yet fraud detection models are often summarized by accuracy values that conceal how much fraud they miss. This study compares a Naive Bayes baseline, three gradient boosting libraries (LightGBM, XGBoost and CatBoost), an autoencoder anomaly detector, and a hybrid model that supplies the autoencoder's reconstruction error to LightGBM, using the IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection dataset. The 590,540 labeled transactions were ordered in time and divided into training (60%), validation (20%) and test (20%) periods, and all preprocessing was fitted on the training period only. On the later test period (118,108 transactions, 4,064 of them fraudulent), LightGBM reached an average precision (AP) of 0.501 and a ROC-AUC of 0.889. XGBoost reached an AP of 0.506 when text features were supplied as integer codes but only 0.325 with its native categorical handling, a larger gap than any observed between libraries. CatBoost reached 0.460 at its 800-iteration cap. The autoencoder alone was weaker than Naive Bayes (AP 0.111 versus 0.132), and adding its reconstruction error to LightGBM changed AP by +0.003 (95% day-bootstrap interval −0.002 to 0.009). At thresholds selected on validation data, the strongest models detected 43–46% of test fraud at 53–55% precision, whereas a classifier that flags nothing reached 96.6% accuracy. Every model performed worse on the test period than on validation. These results indicate that categorical encoding, threshold choice and temporal evaluation affect reported fraud detection performance at least as much as the choice among modern boosting libraries. |
| Keywords | credit card fraud, IEEE-CIS, gradient boosting, autoencoder, temporal validation, class imbalance, average precision |
| Field | Computer > Artificial Intelligence / Simulation / Virtual Reality |
| Published In | Volume 8, Issue 5, September-October 2026 |
| Published On | 2026-09-29 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2026.v08i05.88736 |
Share this

E-ISSN 2582-2160
CrossRef DOI prefix of IJFMR is 10.36948/ijfmr
All research papers published on this website are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, and all rights belong to their respective authors/researchers.
Powered by Sky Research Publication and Journals