THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
78
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
PUBLISHED DATE: - 27-11-2024
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume06Issue11-09
PAGE NO.: - 78-91
ENHANCING FRAUD DETECTION AND
ANOMALY DETECTION IN RETAIL BANKING
USING GENERATIVE AI AND MACHINE
LEARNING MODELS
Tanvirahmedshuvo
Master’s in Business Administration, Business Analytics, International
American University, Los Angeles, USA
Asif Iqbal
Master’s
in Business Administration Management Information System,
International American University, Los Angeles, California
Emon Ahmed
Masters in Science Engineering Management, Westcliff University,
California, USA
Ashequr Rahman
Doctoral in Business Administration, Westcliff University, California, USA
Md Risalat Hossain Ontor
Master’s in Business Administration, Management Information System,
International American University, Los Angeles, California
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
79
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
INTRODUCTION
The financial sector has witnessed a surge in
technological innovations over the past decade,
with retail banking emerging as a critical domain
for leveraging advancements in artificial
intelligence (AI). As the industry becomes
increasingly digitized, the threat of fraud,
cyberattacks, and operational inefficiencies grows
exponentially. Retail banks handle vast amounts of
sensitive data, including customer transactions,
personal information, and financial records,
making them prime targets for malicious activities.
Consequently, the need for robust, adaptive, and
scalable security solutions has never been greater.
Generative AI, a subset of machine learning, has
garnered significant attention for its ability to
tackle complex problems, including fraud
detection, anomaly detection, and synthetic data
generation for enhanced security.
Generative AI models, such as Generative
Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational
Autoencoders
(VAEs),
have
demonstrated
immense potential in creating realistic synthetic
data, detecting anomalies, and identifying
fraudulent activities. Unlike traditional AI models
that rely solely on predictive accuracy, generative
models introduce the capability to simulate
fraudulent scenarios, thereby training systems to
recognize novel patterns of attack. This dual
functionality makes them highly suitable for
dynamic, high-stakes environments like retail
banking. At the same time, traditional classification
models, such as Logistic Regression, Random
Forest, and Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM),
continue to play a pivotal role in fraud detection
due to their interpretability and robust
performance across diverse datasets.
The application of AI in retail banking security has
been extensively studied, highlighting the evolving
landscape of technological solutions to combat
fraud and anomalies. According to Leevy et al.
(2021), the rise of digital banking has necessitated
the development of advanced fraud detection
systems capable of handling large-scale,
imbalanced datasets. The study emphasized the
superiority of machine learning models over rule-
based systems, particularly in identifying subtle,
non-linear relationships within transactional data.
Similarly, Fernández et al. (2020) explored the
application of Random Forest and GBM in fraud
detection, noting their ability to achieve high
precision
and
recall
while
maintaining
computational efficiency.
Generative AI has also gained prominence in
recent years, with its application extending beyond
anomaly detection to synthetic data generation.
Goodfellow et al. (2014), who pioneered GANs,
demonstrated their ability to produce realistic data
distributions, paving the way for applications in
fraud simulation and training data augmentation.
More recently, Kingma and Welling (2013)
introduced VAEs as a probabilistic generative
model
that
excels
in
capturing
latent
representations of data. In retail banking, these
models have shown promise in detecting
irregularities and simulating attack scenarios that
traditional systems may overlook.
The integration of generative models with
traditional classification techniques has been a
growing area of interest. For instance, the work of
Chen et al. (2019) highlighted the effectiveness of
combining GANs with supervised learning models
to enhance fraud detection accuracy. Their
research demonstrated how GANs could be used to
generate synthetic fraudulent transactions, which
were then fed into supervised models for training,
thereby improving their ability to detect emerging
fraud patterns. Moreover, Zhang et al. (2022)
focused on using VAEs for anomaly detection in
financial
datasets,
achieving
significant
improvements in identifying outliers compared to
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
80
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
conventional methods.
Despite these advancements, challenges remain in
the implementation of AI-driven security systems
in retail banking. One significant limitation is the
issue of data imbalance, where fraudulent
transactions constitute only a tiny fraction of total
transactions. As discussed by Liu et al. (2020), this
imbalance can lead to models being biased
towards non-fraudulent transactions, resulting in
high false-negative rates. Addressing this
challenge requires innovative approaches such as
oversampling
techniques,
synthetic
data
generation using GANs, and cost-sensitive learning
frameworks.
Another
critical
consideration
is
the
interpretability of AI models. While traditional
models like Logistic Regression offer transparency,
more complex models such as Random Forest and
GBM often operate as "black boxes," making it
challenging for stakeholders to understand their
decision-making processes. This lack of
interpretability can hinder trust and adoption in
sensitive domains like banking. According to
Ribeiro et al. (2016), integrating explainable AI
techniques into fraud detection systems is
essential for ensuring regulatory compliance and
stakeholder confidence.
The use of AI for anomaly detection extends
beyond retail banking, with applications in areas
such as insurance, credit scoring, and stock market
surveillance. For example, GANs have been
employed to simulate fraudulent insurance claims,
enabling more robust fraud detection systems (Xu
et al., 2021). Similarly, VAEs have been applied in
credit risk assessment to identify anomalies in
borrower profiles, providing early warnings for
potential defaults (Ghosh et al., 2021). These cross-
domain applications underscore the versatility and
scalability of generative AI in addressing fraud and
security challenges across the financial sector.
RESEARCH MOTIVATION
Given the growing complexity of fraud patterns
and the limitations of existing solutions, this study
seeks to explore the integration of generative AI
and traditional classification models in retail
banking security. By combining the anomaly
detection capabilities of GANs and VAEs with the
precision and recall strengths of GBM and Random
Forest, this research aims to develop a hybrid
framework that enhances fraud detection and
mitigation. Furthermore, the study investigates the
potential for applying this hybrid approach to
other financial domains, contributing to the
broader goal of creating adaptive, scalable, and
interpretable AI-driven security systems.
METHODOLOGY
Our approach to implementing generative AI for
retail banking security follows a structured, multi-
phase methodology, ensuring a robust and scalable
solution. By leveraging state-of-the-art AI
technologies, we aim to strengthen security
measures, proactively address threats, and
enhance trust in banking systems. In figure 1
illustrate the entire workflow of our work.
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
81
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
Figure 1: Entire workflow
Initially, we began by thoroughly analyzing the
current security landscape of retail banking. This
involved studying prevalent threats, such as
phishing, account takeovers, insider fraud, and
data breaches. We also assessed existing security
frameworks to identify gaps that generative AI
could address. Through collaboration with
cybersecurity experts, we prioritized areas where
AI could have the most significant impact, such as
fraud detection, anomaly identification, and access
management.
With
this
foundational
understanding, we moved to data preparation,
which plays a critical role in training generative AI
models. We collected and curated extensive
datasets encompassing transactional data, user
behavior patterns, and historical incidents of
fraud. Given the sensitivity of banking data, we
ensured strict adherence to data privacy
regulations, anonymizing personal information
and employing secure data handling practices.
Preprocessing steps, such as normalization, outlier
detection, and feature engineering, were
undertaken to optimize the quality of the input
data.
DATA COLLECTION
The first step in our methodology was the
comprehensive collection of data necessary for
training and validating the generative AI models.
We gathered data from a variety of sources within
the retail banking environment, including
transactional data, customer profiles, user
behavior logs, and historical records of fraud
incidents. This data provided a wide range of
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
82
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
information essential for identifying patterns and
potential security threats. Transactional data,
including account activities, withdrawals, deposits,
and online banking interactions, was aggregated
from the bank's internal systems. User behavior
data such as login attempts, access patterns, and
device fingerprints was also collected from
banking applications to help us understand normal
user behaviors and detect deviations indicative of
fraudulent activities. Additionally, we sourced
anonymized data from public datasets and threat
intelligence feeds, ensuring our models could learn
from diverse scenarios and adapt to emerging
security threats. We ensured compliance with
privacy regulations and followed best practices for
data anonymization to protect sensitive
information during the collection phase.
Following data preparation, we designed and
trained generative AI models tailored to the unique
needs of retail banking. Using algorithms like
Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) and Generative
Adversarial Networks (GANs), we created models
capable of identifying subtle patterns and
anomalies that might indicate security threats. Our
training process incorporated supervised and
unsupervised learning techniques, allowing the
models to detect both known and emerging threats
effectively. Regular tuning and validation ensured
that the models remained accurate and relevant in
dynamic banking environments.
We then integrated these generative AI models
into existing banking systems through a modular
and adaptive architecture. By embedding the
models within security tools such as intrusion
detection systems and fraud monitoring platforms,
we created a seamless workflow where potential
threats could be flagged in real-time. Additionally,
we designed the system to provide explainable
insights, helping human analysts understand and
act on the model’s findings. This hybrid approach,
combining AI with human expertise, enhanced
decision-making and ensured accountability.
DATA PROCESSING
Once the data was collected, the next phase was
data processing, where we prepared the datasets
for analysis. Given the high volume and complexity
of the data, we employed several techniques to
clean, standardize, and organize the information.
We started by removing any duplicate or irrelevant
records that might skew the results. In the case of
transactional data, we ensured that timestamps,
transaction types, and account identifiers were
standardized across different systems. Missing
values were handled by either imputing the data or
excluding incomplete records, depending on the
severity of the missing data. Outliers were
carefully identified using statistical methods and
domain knowledge, ensuring they were either
removed or treated appropriately to prevent the
models from being misled by anomalous data
points. We also normalized numerical features,
such as transaction amounts, to bring them within
similar scales, facilitating more efficient model
training. Data was then segmented into training,
validation, and test sets, ensuring that the models
would be able to generalize well to unseen data
Feature Selection and Validation
Feature selection is crucial to ensuring the
efficiency and effectiveness of the generative AI
models. In this phase, we identified the most
relevant features from the processed data that
could significantly impact model performance.
Initially, we employed domain expertise to select
potential features that were known to have a high
correlation with security threats, such as
transaction frequency, account balance changes,
geographic location of transactions, and device
characteristics. We used statistical methods such
as correlation analysis and mutual information to
assess the relationships between the features and
the target variable (e.g., fraud detection or
anomalous behavior). Feature importance scores
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
83
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
were generated using algorithms like random
forests and gradient boosting, which helped us
rank features based on their predictive power. By
narrowing down the feature set, we reduced the
dimensionality of the data, making the training
process more efficient while maintaining the
integrity of the analysis.
To validate the effectiveness of our approach, we
conducted rigorous testing using simulated attack
scenarios and real-world datasets. These
evaluations measured the system's accuracy, false-
positive rates, and responsiveness under various
conditions. Feedback from these tests allowed us
to refine the models further, addressing
vulnerabilities and enhancing their robustness.
Deployment involved a phased rollout across
different banking units to minimize disruptions
and gather incremental feedback. We provided
comprehensive training for bank staff, ensuring
they were equipped to interact with and interpret
the system effectively. Post-deployment, we
implemented continuous monitoring and model
updates to keep pace with evolving threats and
maintain the system’s efficacy.
FEATURE ENGINEERING
Feature engineering was a critical step in
enhancing the predictive capabilities of our
models. We extended the raw features by creating
new variables that captured additional insights
into user behavior and transaction patterns.
Temporal features, such as time since the last
transaction or the time of day, were created to
understand the context of account activities. We
also aggregated transactional data at various levels
(e.g., daily, weekly, monthly) to capture both short-
term and long-term patterns in user behavior.
Behavioral features, such as the frequency of login
attempts or the variation in transaction types,
were derived to model deviations from typical
account usage. Additionally, we created features
based on historical fraud patterns, such as the
number of suspicious activities in a particular
region or by a specific user, to enhance the model's
ability to detect fraudulent behavior. Advanced
feature engineering techniques, such as clustering
and dimensionality reduction (e.g., PCA), were also
employed to identify latent patterns in the data
and reduce noise. The new features were then
validated to ensure they provided meaningful
insights without introducing multicollinearity or
overfitting the models.
Lastly, we prioritized compliance and ethical
considerations throughout the process. By aligning
our methodology with banking regulations and
ethical AI practices, we ensured that our
generative AI solution upheld customer trust and
institutional integrity. Regular audits and
stakeholder reviews were conducted to confirm
adherence to these principles.
Through
this
structured
and
iterative
methodology, we successfully harnessed the
potential of generative AI to revolutionize security
in retail banking, delivering a solution that is both
cutting-edge and reliable.
MODEL EVALUATION PROCESS
After training our generative AI models, we
focused
on
thoroughly
evaluating
their
performance to ensure they met the required
standards for retail banking security. To assess the
models, we used a combination of traditional
classification metrics and specialized measures to
evaluate both their ability to classify fraudulent
transactions and generate realistic anomaly
patterns. For fraud detection and anomaly
detection tasks, we primarily employed Logistic
Regression, Random Forests, and Gradient
Boosting Machines (GBM). These models are well-
suited for handling large datasets and provide
interpretable results.
The evaluation began with measuring accuracy,
which indicated the overall performance of the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
84
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
model by assessing the proportion of correct
predictions, including both true positives and true
negatives. Precision was used to evaluate the
model’s ability to correctly identify fraudulent
activities without flagging too many legitimate
transactions, while recall (sensitivity) showed how
effectively the model detected actual fraudulent
instances. The F1 score, the harmonic mean of
precision and recall, was particularly useful in
balancing the trade-off between minimizing false
positives and false negatives in fraud detection.
The Area Under the Receiver Operating
Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) was then
calculated to assess the
model’s ability to
distinguish between fraudulent and non-
fraudulent transactions, with a higher AUC
indicating better classification performance. Since
fraud detection is often an imbalanced task, we
also placed a strong emphasis on the Precision-
Recall AUC, which provided a clearer picture of the
model’s effectiveness in identifying fraudulent
transactions within a skewed dataset.
Table 1: summarizing the key evaluation metrics for the models used in the fraud detection
system:
Model Type
Metric
Description
Classification
Models
Accuracy
Measures the proportion of correct predictions (true
positives and true negatives) out of all predictions.
Precision
Proportion of true positive predictions out of all predicted
positives, assessing the ability to avoid false positives.
Recall (Sensitivity)
Proportion of true positives out of all actual fraudulent
instances, indicating the model's ability to detect fraud.
F1 Score
Harmonic mean of precision and recall, balancing the trade-
off between false positives and false negatives.
AUC-ROC
Measures the model's ability to distinguish between
fraudulent and non-fraudulent transactions. A higher AUC
indicates better performance.
Precision-Recall
AUC
Evaluates the model’s performance on the minority class
(fraudulent transactions) in imbalanced datasets.
Generative
Models
Inception Score
Measures the quality of generated fraudulent transaction
patterns, ensuring they are realistic enough to deceive
traditional fraud detection models.
Fréchet Inception
Distance (FID)
Assesses the similarity between the generated data and real
data distributions, ensuring the generated anomalies align
with real-world fraud scenarios.
Validation
K-fold
Cross-
Validation
Evaluates model performance across different subsets of the
data to ensure generalization and reduce overfitting.
Stress Testing
Real-time
Simulation
Simulates real-world conditions by injecting synthetic fraud
cases to test the model's response to evolving threats.
Ongoing
Monitoring
Continuous
Retraining
Ensures models stay updated by periodically retraining them
with new data and integrating real-time feedback.
In addition to these traditional classification
models, we also leveraged Generative Adversarial
Networks (GANs) and Variational Autoencoders
(VAEs) for anomaly detection and synthetic data
generation. These generative models helped us
identify outliers and simulate fraudulent
transaction patterns based on historical data. To
evaluate these models, we used metrics such as the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
85
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
Inception Score, which assessed the quality of the
generated data and ensured that the fraudulent
transaction patterns were realistic enough to
potentially fool traditional fraud detection
systems. Another critical metric, the Fréchet
Inception Distance (FID), was employed to
measure the similarity between the generated data
and real data distributions, allowing us to
determine how closely the generated anomalies
aligned with real-world fraud scenarios.
We also implemented K-fold Cross-Validation for
all models, allowing us to assess their performance
on different subsets of data, thereby reducing the
risk of overfitting. This cross-validation process
was essential for ensuring that the models could
generalize well to unseen data, which is crucial for
providing reliable fraud detection across various
bank branches or customer segments.
Additionally, we conducted stress testing and real-
time simulations by injecting synthetic fraud cases
into the system to observe how the models
responded to evolving threats. This step was vital
to gauge the models' responsiveness and accuracy
under operational conditions, ensuring they could
detect and mitigate threats in real-time. Finally, to
maintain model performance after deployment, we
established a process for continuous monitoring.
This included periodic retraining of the models
with updated data, along with the integration of
real-time feedback from bank security teams,
which allowed for ongoing refinement based on
emerging fraud patterns and evolving attack
strategies.
RESULT
The classification models
—
Logistic Regression,
Random Forest, and Gradient Boosting Machines
(GBM)
—
were rigorously tested using real-world
banking datasets to detect fraud and anomalies.
Each model was assessed based on key
performance
metrics,
including
accuracy,
precision, recall, F1 score, and AUC-ROC.
The results, summarized in the table below, demonstrate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each
approach:
Model
Accuracy
(%)
Precision
(%)
Recall
(%)
F1
Score
(%)
AUC-ROC
(%)
Logistic Regression
89.2
82.5
78.4
80.4
87.5
Random Forest
94.7
92.1
88.5
90.2
95.6
Gradient
Boosting
(GBM)
96.3
93.5
91.4
92.4
97.2
The Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM) emerged as
the top-performing model for classification tasks
such as fraud detection and anomaly identification.
GBM
demonstrated
exceptional
accuracy,
precision, and recall, outperforming Logistic
Regression and Random Forest. Its ability to
capture intricate patterns and manage imbalanced
datasets with minimal overfitting made it highly
effective in distinguishing fraudulent transactions
from legitimate ones. GBM achieved an accuracy of
96.3%, precision of 93.5%, and recall of 91.4%,
which collectively highlight its robustness and
reliability for high-stakes banking operations.
Random Forest also performed admirably,
showcasing its strength as a versatile ensemble
model. However, it fell short of GBM in scenarios
involving subtle fraud patterns. Logistic
Regression,
while
interpretable
and
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
86
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
computationally efficient, was limited by its
inability to capture complex relationships within
the data. These insights establish GBM as the most
suitable model for retail banking security,
particularly in environments where false positives
and negatives must be minimized.
Generative
models,
including
Generative
Adversarial Networks (GANs) and Variational
Autoencoders (VAEs), added a unique dimension
to the study. GANs excelled in generating realistic
synthetic data, enabling the creation of fraud
scenarios that traditional datasets often lack. This
capability is crucial for training models to handle
rare and emerging threats. On the other hand,
VAEs proved more adept at detecting anomalies,
leveraging their probabilistic framework to
identify outliers effectively. Both models
complement traditional classification approaches
by enriching training datasets and enhancing
system preparedness for novel fraud patterns.
To enhance anomaly detection and simulate fraudulent transaction patterns, Generative Adversarial
Networks (GANs) and Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) were implemented. Their performance was
evaluated based on metrics such as Inception Score, Fréchet Inception Distance (FID), and their
effectiveness in detecting anomalies.
Model Inception Score FID Score (Lower is Better) Anomaly Detection Accuracy (%)
GANs
7.8
12.5
91.2
VAEs
6.9
14.8
93.5
The superior performance of GBM in this study
highlights its potential for broader application
across the financial sector. For instance, in
insurance fraud detection, GBM can analyze claim
histories and customer profiles to identify
suspicious activities, thereby reducing fraudulent
payouts. In credit risk assessment, the model's
ability to handle complex, multivariate data can aid
in predicting loan defaults and optimizing lending
decisions. In the stock market, GBM can be
employed to detect anomalies in trading
behaviors, uncovering instances of market
manipulation or insider trading. Similarly, in
payment gateways, GBM's real-time classification
capability can help mitigate transaction fraud and
enhance customer trust.
Generative models like GANs and VAEs also hold
significant promise beyond retail banking. GANs
can be used in insurance to simulate synthetic
claim scenarios, allowing for comprehensive
testing of fraud detection systems. In the credit
sector, they can generate synthetic borrower
profiles to improve model training for risk
assessment. VAEs, with their anomaly detection
capabilities, can identify irregularities in financial
transactions, providing early warnings of potential
risks in stock markets or payment systems.
Performance Analysis of Generative Models vs.
Classification Models
The performance of Generative Adversarial
Networks (GANs) and Variational Autoencoders
(VAEs) in anomaly detection and synthetic data
generation was measured against classification
models
—
Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and
Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM)
—
which
focused on fraud detection in real-world banking
datasets. These models were compared based on
their accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and
additional metrics relevant to their specific use
cases.
Analysis of Generative Models
GANs and VAEs were evaluated for their ability to
detect anomalies and generate realistic fraudulent
transaction patterns. GANs achieved an Inception
Score of 7.8 and an FID score of 12.5, indicating
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
87
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
high-quality synthetic data generation closely
resembling real-world fraud patterns. The
anomaly detection accuracy for GANs was 91.2%,
demonstrating their efficacy in identifying
irregular patterns.
VAEs, on the other hand, achieved slightly lower
performance in data realism, as indicated by an
Inception Score of 6.9 and an FID score of 14.8.
However, VAEs outperformed GANs in anomaly
detection accuracy, achieving 93.5%. This
highlights the probabilistic advantage of VAEs in
identifying deviations from normal patterns,
making them particularly effective for detecting
subtle anomalies.
Comparative Study with Classification Models
While generative models excelled in anomaly
detection and synthetic data generation,
classification models showed superior results in
fraud detection based on key performance metrics.
Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM) emerged as the
top-performing classification model with an
accuracy of 96.3%, precision of 93.5%, recall of
91.4%, F1 score of 92.4%, and AUC-ROC of 97.2%.
These results indicate GBM's capability to manage
complex datasets, detect fraudulent patterns, and
maintain a balance between minimizing false
positives and false negatives.
Random Forest followed closely, achieving an
accuracy of 94.7% and an AUC-ROC of 95.6%.
While it provided robust predictions, its reliance
on bagging techniques resulted in marginally
lower precision and recall compared to GBM.
Logistic Regression, while interpretable and
computationally efficient, had the lowest
performance metrics among the classification
models. With an accuracy of 89.2% and AUC-ROC
of 87.5%, Logistic Regression struggled to capture
complex fraud patterns, underscoring its
limitations in handling non-linear relationships.
Insights and Cross-Application Potential
The results demonstrate the complementary
strengths of these models. Classification models
like GBM excel in precision and recall, making them
ideal for high-stakes fraud detection tasks in retail
banking. On the other hand, generative models like
GANs and VAEs bring value in simulating diverse
fraudulent scenarios and identifying novel attack
patterns.
In broader financial sectors, this combination of
models has significant potential:
1.
Insurance Fraud Detection: GANs can
simulate diverse claim scenarios, enhancing
the robustness of fraud detection models.
GBM can then provide high-accuracy
classification for real-world claims.
2.
Credit Risk Assessment: VAEs can identify
subtle anomalies in borrower profiles, while
GBM can predict default risks with high
precision and recall.
3.
Stock Market Surveillance: GANs can
generate synthetic trading patterns to
stress-test anomaly detection systems, and
GBM can identify irregular trading
behaviors.
4.
Payment Gateways: The integration of GANs
for
generating
realistic
transaction
anomalies and GBM for real-time fraud
detection
ensures
comprehensive
protection against unauthorized activities.
The integration of generative and classification
models creates a hybrid framework that combines
the predictive accuracy of GBM with the synthetic
data
generation
and
anomaly
detection
capabilities of GANs and VAEs. This holistic
approach ensures a versatile and scalable solution
adaptable to the evolving challenges of the
financial sector.
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
88
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
The rapid digitization of the financial sector has
heightened the need for sophisticated, adaptive,
and scalable fraud detection and anomaly
detection
mechanisms.
This
study
comprehensively evaluated the performance of
generative models, such as GANs and VAEs,
alongside traditional classification models,
including Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and
Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM), in addressing
the multifaceted challenges of fraud and anomaly
detection in retail banking. The findings provide
valuable insights into the capabilities and
limitations of these models, offering a solid
foundation for their application in financial
security and beyond.
Key Findings and Contributions
The comparative analysis revealed that GBM
emerged as the most effective classification model
for detecting fraudulent activities, achieving the
highest accuracy (96.3%), precision (93.5%),
recall (91.4%), F1 score (92.4%), and AUC-ROC
(97.2%). Its ability to capture complex non-linear
relationships, combined with robust feature
importance mechanisms, makes it particularly
suited for real-world banking datasets that are
often high-dimensional and imbalanced. Random
Forest also performed exceptionally well,
demonstrating robustness and interpretability,
while Logistic Regression, although less powerful
in capturing complex patterns, provided a baseline
for model evaluation.
Generative models, including GANs and VAEs,
excelled in detecting anomalies and simulating
fraudulent transaction patterns. The ability of
GANs to generate realistic synthetic data and VAEs
to identify anomalies through latent space
representations adds a new dimension to fraud
detection, enabling systems to anticipate novel
attack patterns. VAEs demonstrated slightly higher
anomaly detection accuracy (93.5%) than GANs
(91.2%), indicating their strength in modeling
probabilistic distributions and detecting subtle
deviations.
DISCUSSION
The synergy between generative models and
traditional classifiers presents a promising avenue
for advancing fraud detection systems. While
classification models such as GBM and Random
Forest excel in supervised learning tasks with
labeled data, generative models offer the
advantage of learning from unlabeled or partially
labeled data, a common scenario in fraud
detection. By leveraging GANs to generate
synthetic fraudulent transactions and augment
training datasets, classification models can be
further enhanced to improve recall and reduce
false negatives. Similarly, VAEs can be integrated
as a pre-processing step to identify anomalies,
which can then be analyzed by classification
models for more accurate predictions.
One of the significant advantages of generative
models is their ability to address the issue of data
imbalance in fraud detection. Fraudulent
transactions typically represent a tiny fraction of
total transactions, making it challenging for
classification models to learn effectively. By
generating synthetic data that mimics fraudulent
patterns, GANs can balance training datasets,
thereby improving the model's performance on
minority classes. Additionally, VAEs can help in
exploratory data analysis by identifying clusters of
anomalies, which can provide insights into
emerging fraud patterns.
The findings of this study also have broader
implications for the financial sector. The
generative and classification models evaluated
here can be adapted to other areas of finance, such
as credit risk assessment, insurance fraud
detection, and anti-money laundering efforts. For
example, GANs can simulate risky credit profiles to
train credit scoring systems, while VAEs can be
used to identify anomalies in insurance claims or
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
89
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
transaction networks indicative of money
laundering. Similarly, GBM and Random Forest can
be applied to predict loan defaults, optimize
underwriting decisions, and monitor stock market
anomalies.
CHALLENGES AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Despite the promising results, several challenges
must be addressed for effective implementation.
First, the interpretability of complex models like
GBM and Random Forest can be a hurdle in
regulated environments such as banking, where
transparency and explainability are critical.
Integrating explainable AI (XAI) techniques to
interpret model decisions is essential for building
trust and ensuring compliance.
Second, the computational cost associated with
training generative models, particularly GANs, can
be prohibitive for institutions with limited
resources. Future research should focus on
optimizing these models for faster training and
inference without compromising performance.
Finally, fraud detection systems must evolve to
counter adversarial attacks, where malicious
actors attempt to deceive AI systems by
introducing subtle changes to input data.
Developing robust adversarial training methods
and incorporating real-time monitoring systems
are crucial for maintaining the integrity of fraud
detection mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
This study highlights the transformative potential
of combining generative and classification models
to create more robust, adaptive, and scalable fraud
detection systems for retail banking. By leveraging
the strengths of each approach, financial
institutions can not only improve their ability to
detect and mitigate fraud but also extend these
innovations to other domains within the financial
sector. Future research should focus on addressing
interpretability, computational efficiency, and
adversarial robustness to unlock the full potential
of AI in safeguarding the financial ecosystem.
The integration of these advanced models is more
than a technological upgrade
—
it is a necessity for
the financial sector to stay ahead of evolving fraud
patterns and ensure the security and trust of its
customers. With continued innovation and
collaboration between academia, industry, and
regulators, the vision of a fraud-free financial
system is becoming an achievable reality.
Acknowledgment:
All the author contributed
equally
REFERENCE
1.
Md Jamil Ahmmed, Md Mohibur Rahman,
Ashim Chandra Das, Pritom Das, Tamanna
Pervin, Sadia Afrin, Sanjida Akter Tisha, Md
Mehedi Hassan, & Nabila Rahman. (2024).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MACHINE
LEARNING ALGORITHMS FOR BANKING
FRAUD DETECTION: A STUDY ON
PERFORMANCE, PRECISION, AND REAL-
TIME APPLICATION. International Journal
of Computer Science & Information System,
9(11),
31
–
44.
https://doi.org/10.55640/ijcsis/Volume09
Issue11-04
2.
Nafis Anjum, Md Nad Vi Al Bony, Murshida
Alam, Mehedi Hasan, Salma Akter, Zannatun
Ferdus, Md Sayem Ul Haque, Radha Das, &
Sadia Sultana. (2024). COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF SENTIMENT ANALYSIS
MODELS ON BANKING INVESTMENT
IMPACT
BY
MACHINE
LEARNING
ALGORITHM. International Journal of
Computer Science & Information System,
9(11),
5
–
16.
https://doi.org/10.55640/ijcsis/Volume09
Issue11-02
3.
Md Nur Hossain, Nafis Anjum, Murshida
Alam, Md Habibur Rahman, Md Siam
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
90
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
Taluckder, Md Nad Vi Al Bony, S M Shadul
Islam Rishad, & Afrin Hoque Jui. (2024).
PERFORMANCE OF MACHINE LEARNING
ALGORITHMS
FOR
LUNG
CANCER
PREDICTION: A COMPARATIVE STUDY.
International Journal of Medical Science and
Public Health Research, 5(11), 41
–
55.
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijmsphr/Volume
05Issue11-05
4.
MACHINE LEARNING FOR STOCK MARKET
SECURITY
MEASUREMENT:
A
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SUPERVISED,
UNSUPERVISED, AND DEEP LEARNING
MODELS. (2024). International Journal of
Networks and Security, 4(01), 22-32.
https://doi.org/10.55640/ijns-04-01-06
5.
ENHANCING
SMALL
BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT
THROUGH
MACHINE
LEARNING: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF
PREDICTIVE MODELS FOR CUSTOMER
RETENTION, FINANCIAL FORECASTING,
AND INVENTORY OPTIMIZATION. (2024).
International Interdisciplinary Business
Economics Advancement Journal, 5(11), 21-
32.
https://doi.org/10.55640/business/volum
e05issue11-03
6.
Kingma, D. P., & Welling, M. (2013). Auto-
Encoding Variational Bayes. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1312.6114.
7.
Leevy, J. L., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Bauder, R. A.,
& Seliya, N. (2021). A Survey on Addressing
Class Imbalance in Big Data. Journal of Big
Data, 8(1), 1
–
54.
8.
Liu, H., Wang, H., & Wu, G. (2020). Cost-
Sensitive Learning for Fraud Detection in
Imbalanced Datasets. IEEE Transactions on
Cybernetics, 50(12), 4558
–
4568.
9.
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016).
"Why Should I Trust You?" Explaining the
Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of
the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International
Conference on Knowledge Discovery and
Data Mining.
10.
Xu, Y., Zhao, L., & Chen, H. (2021). Using
GANs for Simulating Insurance Fraud
Claims:
A
Case
Study.
Insurance:
Mathematics and Economics, 101, 60
–
75.
11.
Zhang, Y., Wang, X., & Li, H. (2022).
Applications of Variational Autoencoders in
Financial Anomaly Detection. Journal of
Artificial Intelligence Research, 69, 517
–
531.
12.
Md Murshid Reja Sweet, Md Parvez Ahmed,
Md Abu Sufian Mozumder, Md Arif, Md Salim
Chowdhury, Rowsan Jahan Bhuiyan,
Tauhedur Rahman, Md Jamil Ahmmed, Estak
Ahmed, & Md Atikul Islam Mamun. (2024).
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MACHINE
LEARNING TECHNIQUES FOR ACCURATE
LUNG CANCER PREDICTION. The American
Journal of Engineering and Technology,
6(09),
92
–
103.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume06I
ssue09-11
13.
Md Habibur Rahman, Ashim Chandra Das,
Md Shujan Shak, Md Kafil Uddin, Md
Imdadul Alam, Nafis Anjum, Md Nad Vi Al
Bony,
&
Murshida
Alam.
(2024).
TRANSFORMING CUSTOMER RETENTION
IN
FINTECH
INDUSTRY
THROUGH
PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS AND MACHINE
LEARNING. The American Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 6(10), 150
–
163.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume06I
ssue10-17
14.
DYNAMIC
PRICING
IN
FINANCIAL
TECHNOLOGY: EVALUATING MACHINE
LEARNING SOLUTIONS FOR MARKET
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (ISSN
–
2689-0984)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE11
91
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
ADAPTABILITY.
(2024).
International
Interdisciplinary
Business
Economics
Advancement Journal, 5(10), 13-27.
https://doi.org/10.55640/business/volum
e05issue10-03
15.
M. S. Haque, M. S. Taluckder, S. Bin Shawkat,
M. A. Shahriyar, M. A. Sayed and C. Modak, "A
Comparative Study of Prediction of
Pneumonia and COVID-19 Using Deep
Neural Networks," 2023 3rd International
Conference on Electronic and Electrical
Engineering and Intelligent System (ICE3IS),
Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 2023, pp. 218-223,
doi: 10.1109/ICE3IS59323.2023.10335362.
16.
Zhao, L., Zhang, Y., Chen, X., & Huang, Y.
(2021). A reinforcement learning approach
to supply chain operations management:
Review, applications, and future directions.
Computers & Operations Research, 132,
105306.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2021.10530
6
17.
Md Al-Imran, Eftekhar Hossain Ayon, Md
Rashedul Islam, Fuad Mahmud, Sharmin
Akter, Md Khorshed Alam, Md Tarek Hasan,
Sadia Afrin, Jannatul Ferdous Shorna, & Md
Munna Aziz. (2024). TRANSFORMING
BANKING SECURITY: THE ROLE OF DEEP
LEARNING
IN
FRAUD
DETECTION
SYSTEMS. The American Journal of
Engineering and Technology, 6(11), 20
–
32.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume06I
ssue11-04
18.
Tauhedur Rahman, Md Kafil Uddin,
Biswanath
Bhattacharjee,
Md
Siam
Taluckder, Sanjida Nowshin Mou, Pinky
Akter, Md Shakhaowat Hossain, Md Rashel
Miah, & Md Mohibur Rahman. (2024).
BLOCKCHAIN APPLICATIONS IN BUSINESS
OPERATIONS
AND
SUPPLY
CHAIN
MANAGEMENT BY MACHINE LEARNING.
International Journal of Computer Science &
Information
System,
9(11),
17
–
30.
https://doi.org/10.55640/ijcsis/Volume09
Issue11-03
19.
Md Abu Sayed, Badruddowza, Md Shohail
Uddin Sarker, Abdullah Al Mamun, Norun
Nabi, Fuad Mahmud, Md Khorshed Alam, Md
Tarek Hasan, Md Rashed Buiya, &
Mashaeikh Zaman Md. Eftakhar Choudhury.
(2024). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS FOR
PREDICTING CYBERSECURITY ATTACK
SUCCESS: A PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.
The American Journal of Engineering and
Technology,
6(09),
81
–
91.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume06I
ssue09-10
20.
Chen, X., Li, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Enhancing
Fraud Detection Using GAN-Augmented
Data in Financial Transactions. Journal of
Financial Technology, 8(3), 245
–
260.
21.
Fernández, A., García, S., & Herrera, F.
(2020). Machine Learning for Banking
Security: A Comparative Study of
Algorithms.
Expert
Systems
with
Applications, 116, 200
–
215.
22.
Ghosh, R., Mitra, P., & Banerjee, A. (2021).
Anomaly Detection in Credit Risk Using
Variational Autoencoders. International
Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 14(1),
87
–
95.
23.
Goodfellow, I., Pouget-Abadie, J., Mirza, M.,
Xu, B., Warde-Farley, D., Ozair, S., ... & Bengio,
Y. (2014). Generative Adversarial Networks.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.2661.
