Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Credit card fraud detection is a highly imbalanced classification problem in which overall accuracy can remain high even when a model fails to detect a substantial proportion of fraudulent transactions. This study evaluates artificial neural network (ANN), linear support vector machine (SVM), non-linear SVM, and a weighted ANN–non-linear SVM ensemble on the widely used public European credit-card transaction dataset containing 284,807 transactions, of which 492 are fraudulent. The dataset was partitioned using a 70:30 training–test design. Feature standardisation was based on the training data, and Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique (SMOTE) was confined to the training data to limit information leakage. The hybrid model combines the calibrated probability outputs of the ANN and non-linear SVM using weights of 0.6 and 0.4, respectively. Performance was assessed using precision, recall, F1-score, accuracy, ROC-AUC, and computational time, with particular emphasis on minority-class detection. The recorded aggregate results show that the hybrid model achieved precision of 0.89, recall of 0.75, F1-score of 0.81, accuracy of 0.99, and ROC-AUC of 0.94. The ANN achieved 0.88 precision, 0.71 recall, 0.78 F1-score, and ROC-AUC of 0.92; the non-linear SVM achieved 0.84, 0.66, 0.74, and 0.90, respectively; and the linear SVM produced the weakest minority-class performance. These results indicate a modest descriptive advantage for the weighted hybrid on this dataset and split, particularly for recall and F1-score. Because the dataset is historical, anonymised, and highly imbalanced, and because the evaluation is based on aggregate metrics without paired row-level predictions, the findings should be interpreted as benchmark evidence rather than proof of deployment-level superiority. Repeated validation, precision–recall analysis, temporal evaluation, and testing on contemporary institutional data are priorities for future work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Evuarherhe et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: