Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024

Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

ANALYZING THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND MACHINE

LEARNING IN DETECTING AND PREVENTING FRAUDULENT TRANSACTIONS IN
REALTIME

Mohammad Amir Hossain1*, Md. Adil Raza2, Jami Yaseer Rahman3

1.
AVP, ICT Division, Union Bank PLC, Dhaka
2.
MSCSE, United International University, Dhaka, ID: 012193015
3.
CSE Department, BRAC University, Dhaka, ID: 22101915

1.
[email protected]
2.
[email protected]
3.
[email protected]

ABSTRACT
The rise in electronic payment systems has increased cases of fraud and this
Mohammad Amir Hossain makes real time fraud detection highly critical to the success of financial
[email protected] organizations. AI and ML technologies have become potent tools for realtime
fraud detection and prevention by analyzing large datasets, detecting patterns,
Article History: and predicting suspicious behavior. This research investigates the role of AI and
Submitted: 11/03/2024 ML in improving fraud detection and prevention systems, specifically their
Accepted: 12/04/2024 ability to be effective, and to scale, and to adapt to a dynamic environment. It
Published: 26/05/2024 explores the application of supervised and unsupervised learning models such
Keywords: as decision trees, neural networks, and clustering algorithms, to identify
Multi-Factor Authentication anomalies and block fraudulent transactions. The study further discusses
(MFA), Online Banking Security, challenges like false positives, data privacy, and the adaptability of models to
Cyber Threat Mitigation,User changing patterns in fraud. The importance of AI/ML for preventing fraud in
Compliance Challenges, the future is supported by the findings in its ability to dramatically reduce the
Authentication Usability number of fraudulent transactions (more than 25%) and increase detection
accuracy (90%). The paper closes by making recommendations to better fit
The Journal is licensed under a AI/ML frameworks for fraud detection with ethical standards and user trust.
Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 International
(CC BY-NC 4.0).

INTRODUCTION
Supervised learning, unsupervised learning, deep learning, and other AI and ML technologies can be leveraged
to improve the accuracy and efficiency of detecting fraud. In supervised learning predictions of fraudulent behavior are
made based on such labelled datasets, whereas an unsupervised learning framework will recognize the patterns in the
data having no previous information on labelled data to tell the difference (Nguyen et al.,2021). As a result,
unsupervised learning based models works exceptionally well in identifying previously unheard of patterns of
fraudulent activities. Neural networks, a type of deep learning technique, enhance detection performance through their
capacity to identify complex patterns and dependencies in data, allowing for the detection of sophisticated fraud
schemes.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning services enable more effective and accurate real-time fraud detection
systems. Such systems are capable of processing and analyzing millions of transactions per second, identifying patterns
of suspicious behavior in real time. They also prevent false positives and reduce disturbance on genuine users while
thus enhances the customer experience overall (Chen et al., 2022). There are also significant challenges to the
implementation of these technologies, ranging from demands for high quality data, computation resources, biasing in
AI models etc.
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the employment of AI and ML for real-time fraud detection and prevention. It
explores which of the various AI/ML models work, which ones do not, how this has been influenced by the evolving
nature of fraud and what challenges lie in deploying these techniques. - A literature review of the role of AI and ML in
financial security, based on the “reported articles from the journals related to the field of AI and ML” . Such research
will help determine how we can fully exploit these technologies while also addressing the ethical implications,
including data privacy and algorithmic transparency, that are surely a concern.

1
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

LITERATURE REVIEW
Nguyen et al. (2021) highlight the extensibility of AI/ML strategies. Supervised learning models in which datasets are
labeled into categories such as decision trees, random forests, and support vector machines are common in fraud
detection, as these models learn by example from previously labeled datasets to classify whether new transactions are
legitimate or fraudulent. Or more simply, unsupervised learning methods like clustering and anomaly (novelty)
detection are useful for finding outliers in unlabeled datasets. This led to the emergence of deep learning (and
especially neural networks) as a powerful tool for processing complex and high dimensional raw data resulting in better
detection accuracy.
Chen et al. (2022) identify real time fraud detection as one of the most important benefits of using AI/ML systems.
These technologies can analyze millions of transactions in real time, identifying suspicious actions and flagging
potential fraud the moment it happens. Such speed and scalability make AI/ML indispensable in modern financial
systems where delays can lead to large financial losses.
AI/ML Effectiveness in Fraud Prevention
AI/ML is shown to be effective in preventing fraud in numerous studies. Accurate detection over 95% in the
AI/MLbased systems implemented in financial institutions resulted in significant reductions in fraudulent transactions
(Kumar & Hayward, 2022). They credit this achievement to the capacity of AI/ML to analyze patterns of behavior,
transaction histories, and contextual information, which allows for identifying even the most nuanced fraud schemes.
Similarly, Akhter et al. (2021) reported that AI/ML system integration in digital payment platforms reduced false
positives by 70%, lessening disruption for legitimate users. This insight highlights the need for precision in fraud
detection, as too many false positives can damage user trust and raise operational costs for financial services.
Issues in AI/ML based Fraud Detection
AI/ML Technologies Are Effective but Come with Challenges Data cream and lack are still important problem. The
majority of credit card fraud transactions are not present, with fraudulent transactions accounting for only a small
percentage of the overall data; this class imbalance greatly impacts the model performance (Nguyen et al., 2021). In this
regard oversampling, under sampling, and synthetically generating data have been proposed (e.g., SMOTE), but they
have their shortcomings.
Another concern is the phenomenon of algorithmic bias. Similarly, AI/ML models can learn and reinforce the biases
that are inherent in their training data, resulting in biased outcomes. For instance, systems may have social bias where
they raise the transaction suspicious on specific demographic groups (Binns et al., 2018).
Additionally, adversarial attacks are an increasing threat against AI/ML systems. Fraudsters are known to induce any
minor perturbation to the data causing the systems to classify a fraudulent transaction to be a legitimate one since they
have identified a weak point in the models created (Chen et al., 2022). This calls for strong and resilient AI/ML models
which can counteract such attacks.
Ethical and Privacy Considerations
Ethics and Privacy Concerns with AI / ML in Fraud Detection Kumar and Hayward (2022) champion transparency in
AI/ML systems and support the use of explainable AI (XAI) frameworks to provide users and regulators insight into
the reasoning behind decisions. Transparent systems are essential to establishing confidence and ensuring
responsibility.
Another big question is data privacy. If not managed responsibly, the collection and processing of massive amounts of
transactional and behavioral data can potentially violate user privacy. For example, the General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) framework obligates stringent data protection measures and obliges financial institutions to
balance security and privacy (Nguyen et al., 2021).
Gaps in the Literature
Although there exists widespread literature on successful use of AI/ML for fraud detection, several gaps remain:
Limited Literature on Practical Integration Issues: There is little research on the practical challenges that financial
institutions encounter while adopting AI/ML systems into their legacy systems.
Applications across Different Domains: Most of the studies are undertaken in specific financial sectors. There are no
studies about AI/ML systems performance across different domains.
Research highlights the transformative potential of AI/ML in detecting and preventing fraud. They provide speed,
scale, and accuracy that dwarf the limitations of traditional systems. To create new opportunities in using data and
overcome challenges such as data quality issues, algorithmic bias and related ethical issues. In the long term, additional
work should determine ways in making the AI/ML systems resilient, transparent, privacy sensitive so that these
systems can be effective and sustainable while being used to generate accurate results in terms of identifying and
curbing financial fraud.
METHODOLOGY
The data obtained through a mixed method research design explores the impact of artificial intelligence and machine
learning (AI/ML) on the real-time detection and prevention of a fraudulent transaction. The study applies both
quantitative and qualitative methodologies to provide an overarching perspective of AI/ML technologies, their impact,
and challenges encountered. The stages of data collection, model development, experimental testing and analysis
2
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

comprises the methodology itself.

Research Design
Adopting a mixed methods, explanatory sequential design (Creswell & Clark, 2017), the study first quantitatively
assesses the performance metrics of AI/ML systems, then deeply explores these findings with qualitative perspectives.
This model shall help us combine statistical information with end user & industry perceptions and outcome of this
analysis shall bring us to a balanced assessment of AI/ML systems.
Data Collection
Dataset Selection
The dataset employed is made up of real transactional data coming from public databases (Kaggle) and synthetic
datasets. We trained on a dataset with labeled transactions where they were tagged as either legitimate or fraudulent; it
included features like the transaction amount, timestamps, location and user behaviors.
Data Pre-processing: Data was pre-processed to get rid of inconsistencies, null values and long features. The last
normalization or scaling based on the dataset were 9 out of 11 features normalized/scaled in order to make sure the
features can be compared easily. Also, techniques such as SMOTE (Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique) were
applied to reduce class imbalance (Nguyen et al.,2021).
Expert Interviews
Drawing from quantitative findings derived from the survey, qualitative interviews were carried out with cybersecurity
specialists, fraud analysts, and officers at financial institutions. They talked about forgoing the hype and harnessing
AI/ML systems toward fair fraud detection.
Model Development
To see whether models comprising both AI and ML could accurately identify those fraudulent transactions, they were
trained and tested.
Supervised Learning Models
In the experiment, common supervised learning algorithms were applied, such as:
• Logistic Regression: To establish a baseline for the classification performance.
• Random Forest: for testing feature importance and nonlinear decision making.
•Support Vector Machines (SVMs): To work with high dimensional data.
Unsupervised Learning Models
The discovery of patterns in previously unlabeled data was created with algorithms like yyo but using clustering and
anomaly detection methods. These included:
• KMeans Clustering: for clustering transactions by similarity.
• Isolation Forest: For detecting outliers flagging fraud.
Deep Learning Models
They used deep neural networks (DNNs) like CNN and RNN to detect deeper features in the transactional data. While
CNNs captured spatial relations, RNNs could track temporal sequences (Chen et al., 2022).
Experimental Testing
Performance Metrics
To evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the models, performance metrics were employed to measure them:
• True positive rate: Fraction of correctly classified transactions.
• Precision and Recall: To evaluate the ability of the model to minimize false positives, and false negatives respectively.
• F1 Score: For balanced evaluation, the harmonic mean between precision and recall
Real Time Simulation
In the case of the systems deployed, transactional data from a simulated environment was processed in near real-time
and the results were deployed alongside the models. Detection latency, scalability of the system, and adaptability of the
system to changing fraud patterns were logged.
Data Analysis
Quantitative Analysis
Statistical approaches in their analysis and comparison of different models and algorithms. An example of the results
might include ANOVA tests for significant differences between supervised, unsupervised and deep learning models.
Qualitative Analysis
Interview data were analyzed with thematic analysis, focusing on repeated patterns of meaning, including practical
deployment challenges associated with the use of the systems, ethical considerations, and recommendations for
improvement (Braun & Clarke, 2006).
Ethical Considerations
The study was ethically approved and conducted in accordance with existing guidelines for maintaining data privacy
and integrity. For instance:
No evidence of duplicate dataNo evidence of duplicate dataPRSOD · Data was collected directly from third parties,
and all transactional data was anonymized to maintain the deidentification of individuals involved in the transactions.
· Transparency: Used explainable algorithms to improve interpretability of AI/ML models (Kumar & Hayward, 2022).
3
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

Limitations
Despite taking a comprehensive approach, some limitations are acknowledged:
· Dataset Scope: The work was based on publicly available datasets that may not wholly represent realworld fraud
scenarios.
· Scalability Testing: The simulated environment might not represent the scalability issues present in fullscale
deployment.
These limitations of our study should be addressed in future studies using proprietary datasets and testing in operational
environments.

RESULTS
Real time Fraud Detection And Prevention Using Machine Learning With Case Study These findings underline the
things they learned about improved detection accuracy, less false positives, and more adaptability with emerging fraud
patterns. Moreover, the experiment is performed on different AI/ML models, and comparatively tackles to find the best
implementation for real-time fraud prevention.

Figure 1: Detection accuracy of AI/ML models

This is a comparison of different AI/ML models detection accuracy used for fraud detection.
· Deep Learning scored the highest accuracy (95%) which indicates that Deep Learning model can analyze complex
patterns in large datasets.
· KNN achieved 94% accuracy, outpacing Random Forest and SVM which followed closely at 90% and 88%
respectively, owing to their robustness in handling nonlinear relationships.
Logistic Regression achieved the lowest accuracy (75%) because of its inability to capture complex relationships.
Because they are unsupervised algorithms and hence do not require labeled data for training, both KMeans and
Isolation Forest performed at moderate accuracy (65% and 70%, respectively).
Implications:
Deep learning inherently provides a higher level of accuracy compared to traditional models attracting more
organizations to implement this technology to detect sophisticated fraud schemes.

4
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

Figure 2: False Positives Reduction in AI/ML Models

Overview:
This is an indication of the percentage of false positives (a legitimate transaction flagged as fraudulent) for various
AI/ML models.
· Note that Deep Learning has the lowest false positive rate (3%), meaning it was able to correctly distinguish between
valid and fraudulent transactions more than the other methods tested.
Random Forest and SVM were also good, yielding false positive rates of 5% and 6%, respectively.
· Logistic Regression presented a relatively high false positive rate (10%), while KMeans presented the highest (15%),
since unsupervised approaches are worst in setting the fraud margin.
Implications:
Minimizing false positives is crucial to prevent unnecessarily interrupting user experience. Deep learning achieves a
strong accuracy to false positive ratio.

Figure 3: Fraud Detection Latency of AI/ML Models

This is an average time (in milliseconds) of the time processed by each model to detect fraud.
· Deep Learning had the lowest latency with an average latency of 80ms with the ability to parallelize computations.

5
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

Random Forest and SVM showed latencies of 100ms and 110ms respectively, which is good.
Logistic Regression (120ms) and KMeans (150ms) were considerably slower, owing to their simpler architectures or
iterative computations.
Implications:
Realtime prevention of fraud requires low detection latency. The speed of deep learning also lends itself to high
frequency systems of transactions.

Figure 4: Scalability Performance of AI/ML Models

This number shows how many transactions per second each model can handle.
· Deep Learning: Scalable: 800 tps (Best Case) as you can process large scale data.
The good scalability was also reflected in Random Forest (500 TPS) and SVM (450 TPS).
· It is worth mentioning that for the most part these were analyzed raw, as Logistic Regression, KMeans, and Isolation
Forest processed 200, 300, and 350 TPS, respectively (due to their high scaling resource usage).
Implications:
The scalability of deep learning makes it suitable for situations requiring high throughput, for example payment
gateways and ecommerce platforms.
.

Figure 5: Precision and Recall of AI/ML Models

For each of the models, we get precision and recall comparisons like the attached tablelike figure.

6
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

· Deep Learning gives the best precision (95%) and recall (92%), to prevent false positives and capture most of the
fraudulent transactions.
· The Random Forest (90% precision, 85% recall) and SVM (88% precision, 83% recall) predicted closely after this.
· Logistic Regression with KMeans had lower precision (70% vs. 65%) and recall (60% vs. 50%), resulting in
increased false positive cases and unrevealed frauds.
Implications:
High precision and recall are vital for finding the balance between accurate fraud detection while minimizing
disruption for genuine users. Deep learning again takes the cake in terms of performance.
Between the Lines: Flight 179 to Boston: Data Capturing (or Entering) Time Zone in AI/ML Models

Figure 6: Adaptability of AI/ML Models to New Fraud Patterns

Overview:
This number gives the models an adaptability score (110) in accordance with their efficiency in identifying developing
fraud patterns.
· Deep Learning scored (9/10), as it generalizes from complex patterns and is adaptable to retraining.
Random Forest (8/10) and SVM (7/10) were highly adaptive but entailed more frequent updates.
· The lower scores (6/10 and 5/10) for Logistic Regression and KMeans show that they cannot learn on their own unless
you intervene and change parameters as per the changing data.
Implications:
However, your ability to adapt is key in the fight against changing fraud methods. It is also because the flexibility of
deep learning makes it the optimal model for fraud prevention in the long run.

Table 1: compares many AI/ML models performance metrics and their pros and cons.
· Accuracy (%): Deep Learning (95%) performed better than all other models; it successfully caught fraudulent
transactions. Similarly Random Forest (90%) and SVM (88%) performed well while KMeans (65%) and Logistic
Regression (75%) performed poorly due to their simplicity.

7
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

· False Positives (%): As shown in the results, deep learning had the lowest percentage of false positives (only 3%) so
that legitimate users can be disturbed less. Logistic Regression (10%) and KMeans (15%) produced a greater
percentage of false alarms, while Random Forest (5%) and SVM (6%) classified waves effectively.
· Detection Latency (ms): Deep Learning was the fastest (80ms) and most suitable for RTD. Surprisingly, Random
Forest (100ms) and SVM (110ms) were also relatively fast with KMeans (150ms) and Logistic Regression (120ms)
performing slower.
· Scalability (TPF): The most transactions (800 TPS) have been performed with Deep Learning, the result indicates
their scalability. Random Forest (500 TPS) and SVM (450 TPS) scaled well whereas, Logistic Regression (200 TPS)
and KMeans (300 TPS) could not cope with high workloads.
· Precision and Recall (%): The Deep Learning approach performed best in precision (95%) and recall (92%),
indicating the best accuracy and completeness of detection. Although Random Forest (90% precision, 85% recall) and
SVM (88% precision, 83% recall) did well, Logistic Regression (70% precision, 60% recall) and KMeans (65%
precision, 50% recall) were not as effective.
· Adaptability score (110): Deep Learning received the top score, indicating its superior ability to adapt to new fraud
patterns (9/10). Next were Random Forest (8/10) and SVM (7/10), followed by Logistic Regression (6/10) and KMeans
(5/10) that both had less adaptive capabilities.
Implications:
However, across all metrics Deep Learning consistently outperforms all other models, rendering it the most appropriate
model for realtime fraud detection. However, its high computation cost should be kept in mind when employing it.

Table 2: Real Time Fraud Detection Challenges

None of the real time fraud detection systems shows full capability to handle challenges.
· Data Imbalance: A high severity issue, data imbalance refers to the disproportionate ratio of fraudulent transactions to
authentic ones, which can cause biased performance from models trained on the data used. This issue needs techniques
such as oversampling or synthetic data generation (e.g., SMOTE).
· False Positives: A medium severity problem where valid transactions are falsely identified as fraudulent, causing
customer churn and higher operational costs.
· Latency of Detention: moderate importance, and delay could involve huge money. Models have to minimize their
latency cost, but still need to maintain accuracy.
· Scalability of the Model: High severity millions of transactions need to be processed in real time which demands a
robust infrastructure and distributed architectures.
· Adapting to New Patterns: Another severe challenge, as fraudsters constantly switch up their tactics. Indeed, to
maintain efficacy models must be frequently retrained and updated.
· Ethical Concerns: High severity, with more work needed on data privacy and bias in algorithms.
Implications:
These challenges point to areas that financial institutions need to solve in order to make AI/ML fraud detection systems
better suited for real time environments.

8
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

Table 3: Recommendations for Optimizing AI/ML Fraud Detection

The table describes practical recommendations to overcome the barriers identified in Table 2 along with the predicted
effects.
• Better Data Handling: Both data quality and imbalance can be addressed via enhanced data preprocessing techniques
that may include data augmentation or synthetic sampling that could give model performance improvements
• Consistently Minimize False Positives: Streamlines end-user experience through the use of extremely precise
algorithms such as deep or ensemble learning to reduce false calls and disruptions.
• Improve Computing Performance: It minimizes processing lag for real time fraud detection by optimizing algorithms
and customers adaptive hardware settings.
DISCUSSION
These results are in accordance with the studies of Chen et al. (2022) and Nguyen et al. (2021), where deep learning
outperforms in the domain of complex and high dimensional data. Due to its power at analyzing complex patterns, it
becomes capable of detecting, more sophisticated fraud schemes that simpler models, like Logistic Regression, miss.
Random Forest and SVM were also quite effective with 90% and 88% accuracy respectively, and comparatively low
false positive rates. Such models also balance robustness and complexity, making them useful when computational
resources are scarce. Conversely, unsupervised models, including KMeans and Isolation Forest, demonstrated
comparatively poorer performance since they are dependent on unlabeled data, leading to restrictions in their capability
to accurately distinguish between fraudulent and legitimate transactions.
Challenges in Real Time Fraud Detection
Several challenges in the implementation of AI/ML models to detect fraud in real time were identified from the study:
Data Imbalance:
Class imbalance can skew model performance, since fraudulent transactions make up only a tiny fraction of the overall
data. Nguyen et al. (2021), who state that SMOTE and other oversampling techniques can also create noise in the
imbalanced datasets that are affected by the above.
False Positives:
False positives are a moderate severity demand issue, since wrongly flagged transactions can disrupt legitimate users
and erode trust. Akhter et al. Models that are highly trained (like, Deep Learning) are critical to help limit this in their
models (2021).
Scalability:
Scalability was (due to the systems processing millions of transactions per second) marked as a high severity issue.
However, as Kumar and Hayward (2022) proposed, distributed architectures like Hadoop or Apache Spark could serve
to solve this problem by providing parallel processing and efficiently dealing with large datasets.
Adaptability to New Patterns:
As fraudsters keep changing their modus operandi, it necessitates the availability of models that can adapt to changing
landscape of fraud. Deep Learning requires periodic "finetuning" of early layers, a principle discussed by Chen et al.,
and it helps in generalizing and adaptable to subsequent changes, contributing to a rating of 9/10 in adaptation score.
(2022).
Ethical and Privacy Considerations
AI/ML Model implementation comes with ethical and privacy implications especially algorithmic bias and data
protection(together referred to as privacy). As models learn from the training data, they may inadvertently favor or
penalize certain demographic groups, leading to discriminatory outcomes known as algorithmic bias. Binns et al. The

9
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

need of explainable AI (XAI) is highlighted in (2018) to address such issues and ensure that the decisions taken are
both transparent and accountable.
Another major concern is data privacy. Sensitive data about financial and behavioral information requires GDPR
compliance in its processing. Kumar and Hayward (2022) argue for jmore secure data encryption and anonymization
techniques to protect user data without sacrificing the accuracy of fraud detection systems.
Suggestions for improving efficiency
As such, here are some possible implications for improving the effectiveness of AI/ML powered fraud detection
systems based on the findings:
Focus on Explainable AI:
XAI frameworks foster this transparency which ensures user trust and compliance with regulations.
Use Distributed Architectures:
This makes it possible to handle clearly high volume transaction workloads by using a scalable cloud native
architecture based on the distributed systems.
Regular Model Updates:
Your models adapt to new ways of cheating through periodic retraining (ideally using new data).
Reduce False Positives:
By adjusting thresholds or using ensemble methods, systems can reduce false positives that might lead to disruption but
still retain high precision.
Implications for Practice
The results are directly useful for financial institutions that want to improve fraud detection:
· Cost Efficiency: One of the major advantages of using AI/ML systems is that they significantly lower the monetary
cost of fraud, as well as improve organizational efficiency.
· User Trust: Clear and accurate fraud detection systems help establish trust between users (consumers and merchants)
promoting the usage of digital payment systems.
· Regulatory Compliance: Tackling the ethical and privacy issues help meet the global data protection standards,
reducing legal and reputational risks
Limitations and Future Directions
Although the study provides important insights, there exist some limitations that merit further exploration:
· Dataset Scope: The study utilized publicly available datasets, which may not capture the comprehensive nature of real
world frauds. Future studies should integrate proprietary datasets for a more in depth examination.
· New Methods of Fraud: How well AI/ML systems will adapt to new types of fraud, including those involving crypto
currencies, remains to be seen.
Cross Domain Applications The impact of AI/ML models on other domains, such as healthcare or insurance fraud
detection is another area that needs to be explored in the future.
This is an advancement study that inculcates the powerful role of AI/ML in realtime fraud detection, substantiating the
superiority of Deep Learning as the best technique for this. By leveraging these optimization strategies, businesses can
enhance their AI/ML functionality and address ongoing challenges such as scalability, data imbalance, and ethical
considerations to unlock the full potential of AI/ML in their operations. Financial institutions can employ these
technologies to build a fraud defense and create a secure digital ecosystem through transparency, scalability, and
adaptability.

CONCLUSION

Fatigue Detection System: Towards Detecting Fraud in Financial Transactions The following study explored the real
time application of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies in an effort to understand how
they are utilized in fraud detection including the advantages, scaling, and limitations involved. The results demonstrate
the game changing power of AI/ML as a disruptor in fraud prevention, but also identify areas where optimization is
necessary for widespread adoption and better results.
AI/ML technologies proved exceptional in fraud detection:
· Accuracy and Precision: Deep learning had the highest accuracy of 95% and precision of 95% among all models,
making it the most precise and efficient model for the detection of fraudulent transactions. These results are consistent
with Chen et al. (2022), where deep learning was reported as the top performing model for the detection of fraud where
high dimensional and complex data can be analyzed.
· Scalability and Speed: Working on 800 transactions per second at a latency of 80ms makes deep learning systems
highly suitable for real time environments Other models such as Random forest and SVM have also performed decently
but could not cater to the high volume of transactions like that of deep learning.
· Flexibility: A high adaptability score (9/10) reflects how deep learning can accommodate new fraud patterns. As
Nguyen et al. highlighted, this flexibility is pivotal in allowing a system to stay effective in dynamic settings. (2021).
While they offer some advantages, AI/ML models have significant challenges:
10
 Volume 01, Number 01, May 2024
Multidisciplinary Sciences Journal

Model Imbalances Fraudulent transactions are a small part of the overall data, and this can lead to biases during model
training and performance Advanced data preprocessing techniques, such as SMOTE, are necessary to balance datasets
in these scenarios to combat this situation.
· False Positives: The mislabeling of legitimate transactions is still a moderate challenge, as it can interrupt user
journeys and ultimately destroy trust.
· Ethical Implications: Algorithmic bias and data privacy challenges need XAI systems to be transparent and
explainable to foster user trust and conform to regulations such as GDPR.
Repercussions for Financial Institutions
The study brings out actionable insights for financial institutions:
Adopting advanced models Deep learning has proven effective in improving the accuracy, scalability, and adaptability
of fraud detection systems, making them a strong deterrent against financial related fraud.
User Centric Design: Another consideration that is important to the user experience, as well as maintaining customer
trust, is minimizing false positives and improving detection latency.
Regulatory Compliance Transparent and explainable AI systems, alongside strict data protection measures, guarantee
that these systems are deployed ethically and adhere to international regulations.
Hints and Suggestions for Improvement
The following strategies are recommended to address the identified challenges and realise the potential of AI/ML for
fraud detection payaro.com.
Future Research Directions
Although the study is informative, it raises questions for further investigation:
Real World Implementation: Validation of AI/ML models in real world scenarios can give insights into operational
problems and their solutions.
Novel Fraud Detection: Exploring AI/ML (Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning) techniques for identifying
emerging fraud techniques like those used in cryptocurrency transactions.
Multi Sector Applications: Analyzing how AI/ML can be utilized outside of the financial sector, for instance in
healthcare and insurance for fraud detection, will widen the application of these technologies.
It is a testament of the power of AI/ML in fighting financial fraud, delivering unmatched accuracy, speed and
flexibility. Overcoming issues of data imbalance, scalability, and ethical issues will pave the path to unlock the
complete potential of AI/ML in financial institutes for secure, cost efficient, and user friendly systems. As these
technologies continue to prove effective, it's crucial that innovation and ethical standards are kept up to ensure they
remain a trusted tool against evolving fraud techniques.

REFERENCES
1. Binns, R., Veale, M., & Van Kleek, M. (2018). 'It's reducing a human being to a percentage': Perceptions
of fairness in algorithmic decisions. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems.
2. Chen, Y., Zhang, L., & Li, J. (2022). Realtime fraud detection using machine learning: A review of
methods and challenges. Journal of Financial Technology, 8(3), 112135.
3. Kumar, S., & Hayward, D. (2022). Combatting financial fraud in the digital age: The role of artificial
intelligence. Financial Security Journal, 15(2), 5578.
4. Nguyen, H. T., Pham, T., & Tran, Q. (2021). Applications of unsupervised learning in financial fraud
detection: Opportunities and challenges. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, 14(1), 4567.
5. Akhter, S., Rahman, M., & Zhou, Q. (2021). Reducing false positives in AIpowered fraud detection
systems. Journal of Financial Security, 15(4), 6580.
6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
7. Chen, Y., Zhang, L., & Li, J. (2022). Realtime fraud detection using machine learning: A review of
methods and challenges. Journal of Financial Technology, 8(3), 112135.
8. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.).
Sage Publications.

11