Computer Science and Information Technologies

Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2024, pp. 195~204

ISSN: 2722-3221, DOI: 10.11591/csit.v5i2.pp195-204  195

The best machine learning model for fraud detection on e-

platforms: a systematic literature review

Alimatu – Saadia Yussiff1, Lemdi Frank Prikutse1, Georgina Asuah2, Abdul – Lateef Yussiff1,
Emmanuel Dortey Tetteh1, Norshahila Ibrahim3, Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad4
1
Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of Cape Coast,
Cape Coast, Ghana
2
Department of Data Science and Engineering, Faculty of Informatics, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
3
Department of Computer Science and Digital Technology, Faculty of Computing and Meta-Technology,
Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Perak, Malaysia
4
Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The internet has been instrumental in the development and facilitation of
online payment systems. However, its associated fraudulent activities on e-
Received Feb 2, 2024 platforms cannot be overlooked. As a result, there has been a growing
Revised May 28, 2024 interest in the application of machine learning (ML) algorithms for fraud
Accepted Jun 4, 2024 detection on financial e-platforms. The goal of this research is to identify
common types of fraud on financial e-platform, highlight different machine
learning algorithms employed in fraud detection, and derive the best
Keywords: machine learning algorithms for fraud detection on e-platforms. To achieve
this goal, the research followed a nine steps systematic review approach to
E-platforms retrieve Journals and conference publications from science direct, Google
Financial transactions Scholar and IEEE Xplore between 2018 and 2023. Out of 2,071 articles
Fraud detection identified and screened, 44 publications (23 articles and 21 conference
Machine learning algorithms proceedings) satisfied the inclusion criteria for further analysis. The random
Online payment systems forest algorithm turned out to be the best ML algorithm because it ranked
first in the frequency of usage analysis and ranked first in the performance
analysis with an average accuracy of 96.67%. Overall, this review has
identified the kinds of fraud on financial e-platforms, and proclaimed the
best and least ML algorithm for fraud detection on financial e-platform. This
can help guide future research and inform the development of more effective
fraud detection systems.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.

Corresponding Author:
Alimatu – Saadia Yussiff
School of Physical Sciences, Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of Cape Coast
Cape Coast, Ghana
Email: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION
The advancement in technology and the evolution of the internet have paved the way for the
establishment of modern services, including e-commerce and financial transactions. Traditional buyer-seller
relationships and the shopping experience for many consumers have been significantly altered by e-
commerce [1]. E-commerce and the widespread use of online banking have contributed to a recent uptick in
the volume of monetary transactions. The Internet has been instrumental in the development and facilitation
of online payment systems. However, this increased convenience presents several obstacles, the most

Journal homepage: http://iaesprime.com/index.php/csit

196  ISSN: 2722-3221

significant of which is the problem of fraudulent activities on these e-platforms [2]. Presently, online
financial fraud has become a more intricate and difficult challenge to solve [3].
The most typical forms of fraud that can be committed on online systems that may cost consumers
and e-commerce sites a lot of money include Payment fraud (criminals commit payment fraud by either
stealing financial details or forging credentials to use for online purchases). Account takeover fraud
(Fraudsters impersonate a real user in order to make illegal purchases or obtain sensitive information).
Phishing scams (Scammers employ phishing emails, texts, and social media posts to fool consumers into
divulging sensitive information by making it look to come from a trusted organization, such as a bank or
online retailer). Identity theft (Theft of sensitive personal information, such as social security numbers or
credit card data, can lead to the opening of fake accounts and the making of fraudulent purchases).
Chargeback fraud (To commit chargeback fraud, a user must erroneously assert that they did not get the
purchased products or services).
We must learn to recognize the red flags of online fraud and take preventative measures. The
traditional methods of fraud detection on e-platforms, such as rule-based systems and manual review
processes, are often unable to keep up with the rapidly evolving tactics of fraudsters. These methods are also
resource-intensive and time-consuming, making them inefficient and often ineffective in detecting and
preventing fraud [4]. Consequently, there has been a growing interest in the application of machine learning
(ML) models for fraud detection on e-platforms. The goal of this research is to identify common types of
fraud on financial e-platform, highlight which ML model are used for fraud detection on financial e-
platforms and also ascertain the best ML for fraud detection on e-platforms in terms of performance matrics.
A machine learning algorithm is a type of algorithm that can learn from data and perform a task
without being explicitly programmed to do so. These algorithms are "soft coded" in the sense that they
improve the task at hand through iteratively changing or adapting their underlying structure [5]. By
measuring prediction mistakes during the training phase, machine learning has an intelligent system that
allows it to continuously learn [6]. Machine learning has proven to be a promising approach for fraud
detection in e-commerce due to its ability to learn from large amounts of data and identify patterns that
traditional methods may miss. By leveraging the power of ML, e-commerce platforms can build more
effective fraud detection systems that are faster, more accurate, and less resource-intensive.
According to [5], depending on how the data is labeled, machine learning can be categorized as
supervised, semi-supervised, or unsupervised. Supervised learning is the process of utilizing labeled datasets
to train algorithms that effectively classify data or predict outcomes (e.g., classification and regression).
Semi-supervised learning is a hybrid of supervised and unsupervised learning in which a portion of the data
is partially labeled and the labeled portion is used to infer the unlabeled portion. In unsupervised learning, the
learning system receives only input samples (e.g., clustering and estimation of probability density function).
However, the use of ML models for fraud detection on e-platforms is not without its own set of
challenges. The performance of these models depends on the quality and size of the training data, the choice
of appropriate features and algorithms, and the complexity of the fraud detection problem. To gain a better
understanding of machine learning models for fraud detection on e-platforms, a systematic literature review
is necessary. Such a review can provide an overview of the existing research on the topic, identify the
different types of machine learning models that have been used for fraud detection, and highlight the best
models. In this regard, the current study was conducted to perform a systematic literature review to analyze
research studies to identify the common types of fraud on financial e-platforms and to determine the best
machine learning algorithms in terms of performance metrics that have been used for fraud detection on e-
platforms.

2. METHOD
This section describes in detail how we carried out the methodological literature review. Based on
the advantages of systematic literature review (SLR) such as comprehensiveness, reliability and unbias
coverage of relevant studies [7], this research adopted the SLR steps in [8] to conduct the SLR by following the
key steps in Figure 1. The application of Figure 1 to our research, are further described in subsections 2.1-2.9.

2.1. Defining the research questions

According to [8], the first stage of SLR is to establish appropriate research questions. These
questions should be focused, clear and guide what we wanted to find out from the research. In this regard, we
derived the following three research questions (RQs) from our pre-planned topic:
RQ1: What are the common types of fraud on e-platforms?
RQ2: Which machine learning algorithms are used for Fraud detection on e-platforms?
RQ3: What are the best machine learning algorithms used on e-platforms for fraud detection?

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2024: 195-204

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  197

Figure 1. Systematic literature review process [8]

2.2. Defining concepts and keywords

In the second step, we then came out with the following three concepts in relation to the topic and
research questions;
Concept 1: “Machine learning models”
Concept 2: “Fraud detection”
Concept 3: “e-platforms”
By considering the synonyms, other spelling variations and abbreviations of the concepts, we then
derived the following keywords: “Machine Learning models”, “Machine Learning techniques”, “Machine
learning algorithms”, “fraud detection”, “e-platforms”, and electronic platforms.

2.3. Defining search string

The above keywords were then merged using control vocabulary or Boolean operators. Thus, using
the “population, intervention, comparison, outcome” (PICO) and the “MESH” approach, we came out with
the following search string as shown in Figure 2.

“Machine Learning models” OR “Machine learning algorithms” OR “Machine Learning techniques” AND
“fraud detection” AND “e-platforms” OR “electronic-platforms.”

Figure 2. Search string

2.4. Defining search engines

In this sub-section 4, search engines were defined. Our methodology used a suitable selection of
databases to obtain comprehensive coverage of the literature and to raise the likelihood of discovering highly
suitable articles. Consequently, the following electronic literature databases were included in our search;
ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and IEEEXplore.

2.5. String refinement

The string defined in sub-section 2.3 was tested in one of the search engines (Google Scholar). Once
the string was applied, we verified if the returned papers were relevant. Known papers that are potential
candidates for primary studies in this review (which exist on these engines) appeared in the search. In cases
where there were no relevant results, the search string was parsed again to be calibrated. At the end, the
refinement of the search criteria was done in each database.

2.6. Search string execution and search results

Once the search string was defined, it was adapted to each of the selected three search engines. As
the search went on, the search results were documented, the number of articles each search returned, and the
date of execution were also documented. Figure 3 demonstrated the resulting preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram derived from the research.
Thus, at the end of searching all the three databases, we found a total of 2,071 articles. These articles
were imported into Rayaan to begin the systematic review process. First of all, 35 out of the 2,071 articles
were de-duplicated in the “Rayaan” web tool. The remaining 2,036 articles were further screened on a title

The best machine learning model for fraud detection on e-platforms: … (Alimatu – Saadia Yussiff)
198  ISSN: 2722-3221

and abstract basis in Rayaan. There was an initial conflict on 20 articles which was subsequently resolved. A
total of 1,894 records were further excluded. The remaining 142 included articles were exported from
“Rayyan” into Microsoft Excel for further screening based on their introductions, methodologies, findings,
and conclusions. The eligibility criteria used is defined in the following section.

Figure 3. PRISMA flow diagram

2.7. Defining inclusion and exclusion criteria

In sub-section 7, we concentrated on examining several factors that affect how financial e-platforms
operate. The chosen approach enabled us to list and categorize different machine learning models currently in
use for detecting fraud on financial e-platforms. The review also included the evaluation of the effectiveness
of different machine learning algorithms in detecting fraud on financial e-platforms. The approach also
identified relevant data using the inclusion and exclusion criteria and in summarizing the findings.

2.8. Selection of papers

“Rayyan” web tool which is designed to help researchers working on systematic reviews, scoping
reviews, and other knowledge synthesis projects, was used in this review for screening and coding of studies.
In order to select the relevant papers for the actual analysis we went through three stages of analyses. First,
we conducted title and abstract screening of the relevant articles by marking them in Rayyan as either
“included”, “excluded” or “doubtful”. Secondly, in order to refine the selection in the previous stage, the
introductions and conclusions of the selected papers were analysed. Finally, the third stage of the analyses
involved complete reading of selected articles, quality check and comparative analysis.
Thus, the 142 articles exported to Microsoft Excel were subjected to the following eligibility
criteria: i) Reports not retrieved (unavailability of full text) and ii) Reports or articles that are out of scope.
The screening results indicated that out of the total of 142 papers, 55 full-text papers were
unavailable and 43 papers were out of scope. The remaining papers included for further analyses were 44.

2.9. Extraction of answers to research questions

At this stage, the research questions were answered by analyzing the selected papers in the previous
step with the aid of a spreadsheet. As we read each of the selected papers, the possible answers extracted was
posted directly in the spreadsheet. Figure 4 shows a snapshot of the spreadsheet used for the final stage of
screening while the results of the research are presented in the Findings and discussions section.

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2024: 195-204

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  199

Figure 4. Snapshot of screening spreadsheet

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section gives a detailed discussion of the results of the analysis. The initial database search
returned a total of 2,071 results. After applying the selection and eligibility criteria, 44 publications were left
for detailed analysis and the results are presented in the following sub-sections.

3.1. Common types of fraud on e-platforms

The first research question was to investigate the common types of fraud on e-platforms, after a
thorough analysis of the 44 articles included in the studies, the result revealed that the common types of
electronic frauds on financial e-platforms are: Credit card fraud, banking transaction fraud and E-commerce
fraud with frequency of 36, 5 and 3 respectively. Therefore, credit card fraud is the most prevalent form of
fraud on e-platforms. Figure 5 and Table 1 summarizes the results.

Frequency

3
40
30
20 5 3
10
0
Credit Card Banking E-commerce
Transaction

Types of Fraud

Figure 5. Types of electronic fraud

Table 1. Types of electronic fraud

No. Type of Fraud Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Credit Card 36 81.82
2 Banking Transaction 5 11.36
E-commerce
3 3 6.82

3.2. Machine learning algorithms used for fraud detection on e-platforms

The second research question was to find out which machine learning algorithms are used for fraud
detection on e-platforms. Table 2 is the summary of results obtained from the 44 articles we worked with. It

The best machine learning model for fraud detection on e-platforms: … (Alimatu – Saadia Yussiff)
200  ISSN: 2722-3221

is evident from Table 2 and Figure 6 that 23 different machine learning models were used in the 44 different
publications we worked with.

Table 2. Different machine learning algorithms for fraud detection

No. Machine Learning (ML) Algorithm Reference Frequency
of Usage
1 Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) [9]-[11] 3
2 Logistic Regression (LR) [10], [12], [13], [14]–[29] 19
3 Random Forest (RF) [10], [12], [15], [17]–[24], [26]–[40] 27
4 XGBoost [14], [22], [21], [35], [40], [41] 6
5 AdaBoost [9], [30], [21], [44], [45], [40], [42], [43] 9
6 Support Vector Machine (SVM) [13], [15]-[17], [19], [20], [26], [27], [29], [31], [32], [46]-[49] 15
7 Naïve Bayes (NB) [10], [15], [25]–[27], [31], [49], [50] 8
8 K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN) [10], [11, [13], [17], [19], [21], [25–27], [31], [48], [50] 12
9 Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) [10], [21], [32], [50] 4
10 Complement Naïve Bayes [10] 1
11 Gaussian Naïve Bayes [10], [19], [21], [50] 4
12 Bernouli Naïve Bayes [10] 1
13 Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGBM) [10], [14], [16] 3
14 Decision Tree [10], [13], [15], [17], [18], [21]–[24], [28], [35], [39] 12
15 Gradient Boost [15], [21], [23], [30] 4
16 Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) [9], [11], [19], [45] 4
17 Isolation Forest [32], [51], 2
18 Artificial Neural Network (ANN) [15], [20], [23], [25], [48], [49], [52] 7
19 k-means [19, [45], [52], 3
20 Linear Regression [35] 1
21 J48 Algorithm [38] 1
22 Perceptron [10], [25], [26] 3
23 CatBoost [40] 1

Figure 6 also illustrates that the least used models are complement naïve Bayes, Bernoulli naïve
Bayes, isolation forest, linear regression, J48, and CatBoost algorithms. Other algorithms like K-nearest
neighbor (KNN), decision tree, support vector machine (SVM), logistic regression, and random forest fell
within the top five with random forest being the most used machine learning algorithm for fraud detection.

Frequency of Usage
27
30
25 19
20 15
12 12
15
6 7 8 9
10 4 4 4 4
5 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3
0

Machine Learning Algorithm

Figure 6. Different machine learning algorithms for fraud detection

3.3. The best machine learning algorithms used on e-platforms for fraud detection
Research question three was to determine the best machine learning algorithms used on e-platforms
for fraud detection. In order to answer this question, we compared and analyzed the performance of the top
five machine learning algorithms based on their frequency of usage. The performance metric used in this
review is accuracy. Since most of the authors used a common dataset (transactions made by credit cards in
September 2013 by European cardholders.), it will be prudent to analyze and compare their performances.
The results from the analysis are presented in Figure 7.

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2024: 195-204

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  201

Average Accuracy (%)

96.54 96.67
98 94.87
96 92.81 93.16
94
92
90
Decision Tree Logistic SVM KNN Random Forest
Regression

Machine Learing algorithm

Figure 7. Average accuracies of top 5 (frequency of usage) ML algorithms

Results from Figure 7 demonstrated that the Decision Tree algorithm performs the least with an
average accuracy of 92.81%. This is followed by logistic regression, SVM, KNN, and random forest
algorithm with an average accuracy of 93.16, 94.87, 96.54, and 96.67 respectively. The result also indicated
that, even though the KNN ranked 4th in terms of frequency of usage as shown in Table 2, it ranked 2 nd in
terms of performance with an accuracy of 96.54% as illustrated in Figure 7. The logistic regression algorithm
ranked 2nd in terms of frequency of usage but it is the 4th best in terms of performance with an average
accuracy of 93.16%. Also, The SVM algorithm ranked 3rd in terms of frequency of usage and ranked 3rd in
terms of performance with an average accuracy of 94.87%. More importantly, the random forest algorithm
ranked 1st in terms of frequency of usage and ranked 1st in terms of performance with an average accuracy of
96.67%.

4. CONCLUSION
This research revealed that credit card fraud is more common in the area of financial fraud on e-
platforms. Based on our systematic literature review credit card fraud accounted for 82.61% of the financial
fraud cases on e-platforms. Secondly, this review identified 23 different machine-learning algorithms that
were used to detect fraud on e-platforms. Notable amongst them is random forest which had the highest
frequency of usage followed by logistic regression and support vector machine, whereas algorithms like
linear regression, Bernouli naïve Bayes, J48 algorithm, and CatBoost had the lowest frequency of usage. The
research also revealed that the predominant usage of a model does not guarantee its superior performance, as
exemplified by the cases of KNN and logistic regression. The logistic regression algorithm ranked 2nd in
terms of frequency of usage but ranked 4th best in terms of performance with an average accuracy of 93.16%.
On the contrary, the KNN ranked 4th in terms of frequency of usage but ranked 2nd in terms of performance
with an accuracy of 96.54%. The random forest algorithm turned out to be the best machine learning
algorithm as it is ranked first in the frequency of usage analysis and first in the performance analysis with an
average accuracy of 96.67%. Hence, the random forest algorithm should be considered ahead of other
machine learning algorithms for such fraud detection analysis on e-platforms. By identifying the strengths
and weaknesses of different approaches, this review can help guide future research and inform the
development of more effective fraud detection systems.Overall, this review has identified the kinds of fraud
on financial e-platforms, and proclaimed the best and least ML algorithm for fraud detection on financial e-
platform. This can help guide future research and inform the development of more effective fraud detection
systems. This review was limited to financial fraud detection and accuracy was the only performance metric
used for the comparative analysis. Future work could therfore consider performance metrics like recall and
precision in the comparative analysis.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Srivastava, P. K. Bala, and B. Kumar, “New perspectives on gray sheep behavior in E-commerce recommendations,” Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 53, p. 101764, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.02.018.
[2] A. M. Alnasrawi, A. M. N. Alzubaidi, and A. A. Al-Moadhen, “Improving sentiment analysis using text network features within
different machine learning algorithms,” Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 405–412, Feb.
2024, doi: 10.11591/eei.v13i1.5576.
[3] D. Choi and K. Lee, “An artificial intelligence spproach to financial fraud detection under IoT environment: a survey and
implementation,” Security and Communication Networks, vol. 2018, pp. 1–15, Sep. 2018, doi: 10.1155/2018/5483472.
[4] K. G. Al-Hashedi and P. Magalingam, “Financial fraud detection applying data mining techniques: A comprehensive review from
2009 to 2019,” Computer Science Review, vol. 40, p. 100402, May 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100402.
[5] I. El Naqa, R. Li, and M. J. Murphy, Eds., Machine Learning in Radiation Oncology. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2015. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18305-3.
[6] S. Masrom, N. H. Abdul Samad, R. Septiyanti, N. Roslan, and R. A. Rahman, “Machine learning prediction for academic

The best machine learning model for fraud detection on e-platforms: … (Alimatu – Saadia Yussiff)
202  ISSN: 2722-3221

misconduct prediction: an analysis of binary classification metrics,” Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, vol. 13,
no. 1, pp. 388–395, Feb. 2024, doi: 10.11591/eei.v13i1.5629.
[7] A. M. Al-Sabaeei, H. Alhussian, S. J. Abdulkadir, and A. Jagadeesh, “Prediction of oil and gas pipeline failures through machine
learning approaches: A systematic review,” Energy Reports, vol. 10, pp. 1313–1338, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.egyr.2023.08.009.
[8] M. Thilakaratne, K. Falkner, and T. Atapattu, “A systematic review on literature-based discovery workflow,” PeerJ Computer
Science, vol. 5, p. e235, Nov. 2019, doi: 10.7717/peerj-cs.235.
[9] F. K. Alarfaj, I. Malik, H. U. Khan, N. Almusallam, M. Ramzan, and M. Ahmed, “Credit card fraud detection using state-of-the-
art machine learning and deep learning algorithms,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 39700–39715, 2022, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3166891.
[10] M. M. M. Megdad, B. S. Abu-Nasser, and S. S. Abu-Naser, “Fraudulent financial transactions detection using machine learning,”
International Journal of Academic Information Systems Research (IJAISR), vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 30–39, 2022.
[11] S. Khatri, A. Arora, and A. P. Agrawal, “Supervised machine learning algorithms for credit card fraud detection: A comparison,”
in Proceedings of the Confluence 2020 - 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science and Engineering,
IEEE, Jan. 2020, pp. 680–683. doi: 10.1109/Confluence47617.2020.9057851.
[12] V. Jain, H. Kavitha, and S. Mohana Kumar, “Credit Card Fraud Detection Web Application using Streamlit and Machine
Learning,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Science and Information System (ICDSIS), IEEE, Jul. 2022, pp. 1–5.
doi: 10.1109/ICDSIS55133.2022.9915901.
[13] S. Khatri, A. Arora, and A. P. Agrawal, “Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms for Credit Card Fraud Detection: A
Comparison,” in 2020 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), IEEE, Jan.
2020, pp. 680–683. doi: 10.1109/Confluence47617.2020.9057851.
[14] B. Keswani et al., “Adapting Machine Learning Techniques for Credit Card Fraud Detection,” in Advances in Intelligent Systems
and Computing, vol. 1087, 2020, pp. 443–455. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-1286-5_38.
[15] M. B. Islam, C. Avornu, P. K. Shukla, and P. K. Shukla, “Cost Reduce: Credit Card Fraud Identification Using Machine
Learning,” in 2022 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp.
1192–1198. doi: 10.1109/ICCES54183.2022.9835811.
[16] N. K. Trivedi, S. Simaiya, U. K. Lilhore, and S. K. Sharma, “An efficient credit card fraud detection model based on machine
learning methods,” International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 3414–3424, 2020.
[17] K. Huang, “An Optimized LightGBM Model for Fraud Detection,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1651, no. 1, p.
012111, Nov. 2020, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1651/1/012111.
[18] K. Abhirami, A. K. Pani, M. Manohar, and P. Kumar, “An Approach for Detecting Frauds in E-Commerce Transactions using
Machine Learning Techniques,” in Proceedings - 2nd International Conference on Smart Electronics and Communication,
ICOSEC 2021, IEEE, Oct. 2021, pp. 826–831. doi: 10.1109/ICOSEC51865.2021.9591720.
[19] A. Singh, A. Singh, A. Aggarwal, and A. Chauhan, “Design and Implementation of Different Machine Learning Algorithms for
Credit Card Fraud Detection,” in 2022 International Conference on Electrical, Computer, Communications and Mechatronics
Engineering (ICECCME), IEEE, Nov. 2022, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICECCME55909.2022.9988588.
[20] G. Sandhya, M. Abishek, S. Gunal Kumar, and R. S. Jisenthira Kumar, “Credit Card Fraud Detection using Machine Learning
Algorithms,” in Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 516, 2023, pp. 313–320. doi: 10.1007/978-981-19-5221-0_30.
[21] P. Sharma, S. Banerjee, D. Tiwari, and J. C. Patni, “Machine learning model for credit card fraud detection-A comparative
analysis,” International Arab Journal of Information Technology, vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 789–796, 2021, doi: 10.34028/iajit/18/6/6.
[22] A. Menshchikov, V. Perfilev, D. Roenko, M. Zykin, and M. Fedosenko, “Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Methods
Application for Financial Fraud Detection,” in 2022 32nd Conference of Open Innovations Association (FRUCT), IEEE, Nov.
2022, pp. 178–186. doi: 10.23919/FRUCT56874.2022.9953872.
[23] B. P. Verma, V. Verma, and A. Badholia, “Hyper-Tuned Ensemble Machine Learning Model for Credit Card Fraud Detection,” in
2022 International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies (ICICT), IEEE, Jul. 2022, pp. 320–327. doi:
10.1109/ICICT54344.2022.9850940.
[24] J. Domashova and O. Zabelina, “Detection of fraudulent transactions using SAS Viya machine learning algorithms,” Procedia
Computer Science, vol. 190, pp. 204–209, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.06.025.
[25] J. K. Afriyie et al., “A supervised machine learning algorithm for detecting and predicting fraud in credit card transactions,”
Decision Analytics Journal, vol. 6, p. 100163, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100163.
[26] M. Â. L. Moreira et al., “Exploratory analysis and implementation of machine learning techniques for predictive assessment of
fraud in banking systems,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 214, no. C, pp. 117–124, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2022.11.156.
[27] E. Strelcenia and S. Prakoonwit, “Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Algorithms using GANs through Credit Card Fraud
Detection,” in 2022 International Conference on Computing, Networking, Telecommunications & Engineering Sciences
Applications (CoNTESA), IEEE, Dec. 2022, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/CoNTESA57046.2022.10011268.
[28] P. K. Sadineni, “Detection of Fraudulent Transactions in Credit Card using Machine Learning Algorithms,” in 2020 Fourth
International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics and Cloud) (I-SMAC), IEEE, Oct. 2020, pp. 659–660. doi:
10.1109/I-SMAC49090.2020.9243545.
[29] S. Patil, V. Nemade, and P. K. Soni, “Predictive Modelling for Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Data Analytics,” Procedia
Computer Science, vol. 132, pp. 385–395, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.199.
[30] R. Jhangiani, D. Bein, and A. Verma, “Machine Learning Pipeline for Fraud Detection and Prevention in E-Commerce
Transactions,” in 2019 IEEE 10th Annual Ubiquitous Computing, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference, UEMCON
2019, IEEE, Oct. 2019, pp. 0135–0140. doi: 10.1109/UEMCON47517.2019.8992993.
[31] S. Saraf and A. Phakatkar, “Detection of Credit Card Fraud using a Hybrid Ensemble Model,” International Journal of Advanced
Computer Science and Applications, vol. 13, no. 9, 2022, doi: 10.14569/IJACSA.2022.0130953.
[32] A. Joyson, A. G. R, and B. Tejashwini, “Credit Card Fraud Identification Using Machine Learning Algorithm,” Journal of
Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, vol. 27, no. 3, p. 2021, 2021, doi: 10.47750/cibg.2021.27.03.220.
[33] A. Kumar, D. Prusti, I. S. Purusottam, and S. K. Rath, “Real time SOA based credit card fraud detection system using machine
learning techniques,” in 2021 12th International Conference on Computing Communication and Networking Technologies
(ICCCNT), IEEE, Jul. 2021, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/ICCCNT51525.2021.9579598.
[34] M. S. Kumar, V. Soundarya, S. Kavitha, E. S. Keerthika, and E. Aswini, “Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Random Forest
Algorithm,” in 2019 3rd International Conference on Computing and Communications Technologies (ICCCT), IEEE, Feb. 2019,
pp. 149–153. doi: 10.1109/ICCCT2.2019.8824930.
[35] K. D. Singh, P. Singh, and S. S. Kang, “Ensembled-based Credit Card Fraud Detection in Online Transactions,” in AIP
Conference Proceedings, 2022, p. 050009. doi: 10.1063/5.0108873.

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2024: 195-204

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  203

[36] T.-H. Lin and J.-R. Jiang, “Credit Card Fraud Detection with Autoencoder and Probabilistic Random Forest,” Mathematics, vol.
9, no. 21, p. 2683, Oct. 2021, doi: 10.3390/math9212683.
[37] N. T. N. Anh, T. Q. Khanh, N. Q. Dat, E. Amouroux, and V. K. Solanki, “Fraud detection via deep neural variational autoencoder
oblique random forest,” in 2020 IEEE-HYDCON, IEEE, Sep. 2020, pp. 1–6. doi: 10.1109/HYDCON48903.2020.9242753.
[38] D. Shaohui, G. Qiu, H. Mai, and H. Yu, “Customer Transaction Fraud Detection Using Random Forest,” in 2021 IEEE
International Conference on Consumer Electronics and Computer Engineering (ICCECE), IEEE, Jan. 2021, pp. 144–147. doi:
10.1109/ICCECE51280.2021.9342259.
[39] T. Mauritsius, S. Alatas, F. Binsar, R. Jayadi, and N. Legowo, “Promo Abuse Modeling in E-Commerce Using Machine Learning
Approach,” in 2020 8th International Conference on Orange Technology (ICOT), IEEE, Dec. 2020, pp. 1–6. doi:
10.1109/ICOT51877.2020.9468744.
[40] B. Kilic, A. Sen, and C. Ozturan, “Fraud Detection in Blockchains using Machine Learning,” in 2022 Fourth International
Conference on Blockchain Computing and Applications (BCCA), IEEE, Sep. 2022, pp. 214–218. doi:
10.1109/BCCA55292.2022.9922045.
[41] K. N. Brahmajirao D, “Recognizing Credit Card Fraud Using Machine Learning Methods,” Turkish Journal of Computer and
Mathematics Education, vol. 12, no. 12, pp. 3271–3278, 2021, doi: 10.17762/turcomat.v12i12.8005.
[42] “Credit Card Fraud Detection using XGBoost Classifier with a Threshold Value”, doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1722294/v1.
[43] K. Randhawa, C. K. Loo, M. Seera, C. P. Lim, and A. K. Nandi, “Credit Card Fraud Detection Using AdaBoost and Majority
Voting,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 14277–14284, 2018, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2806420.
[44] M. Y. Turaba, M. Hasan, N. I. Khan, and H. A. Rahman, “Fraud Detection During Financial Transactions Using Machine
Learning and Deep Learning Techniques,” Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE International Conference on Communications,
Computing, Cybersecurity and Informatics, CCCI 2022, 2022, doi: 10.1109/CCCI55352.2022.9926503.
[45] A. Mishra, “Fraud Detection: A Study of AdaBoost Classifier and K-Means Clustering,” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021, doi:
10.2139/ssrn.3789879.
[46] S. Kumar, V. K. Gunjan, M. D. Ansari, and R. Pathak, “Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Support Vector Machine,” Lecture
Notes in Networks and Systems, vol. 237, pp. 27–37, 2022, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-6407-6_3.
[47] K. Poongodi and D. Kumar, “Support vector machine with information gain based classification for credit card fraud detection
system,” International Arab Journal of Information Technology, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 199–207, 2021, doi: 10.34028/IAJIT/18/2/8.
[48] A. RB and S. K. KR, “Credit card fraud detection using artificial neural network,” Global Transitions Proceedings, vol. 2, no. 1,
pp. 35–41, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.gltp.2021.01.006.
[49] C. . Sumanth, P. P. Kalyan, B. Ravi, and S. Balasubramani., “Analysis of Credit Card Fraud Detection using Machine Learning
Techniques,” in 2022 7th International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems (ICCES), IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp.
1140–1144. doi: 10.1109/ICCES54183.2022.9835751.
[50] H. M. M. H. Vidanelage, T. Tasnavijitvong, P. Suwimonsatein, and P. Meesad, “Study on Machine Learning Techniques with
Conventional Tools for Payment Fraud Detection,” in 2019 11th International Conference on Information Technology and
Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), IEEE, Oct. 2019, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/ICITEED.2019.8929952.
[51] S. Gupta, Meenu, S. Patel, S. Kumar, and G. Chauhan, “Anomaly Detection in Credit Card Transactions Using Machine
Learning,” International Journal of Innovative Research in Computer Science & Technology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 67–71, May 2020,
doi: 10.21276/ijircst.2020.8.3.5.
[52] B. A. Abdulsalami, A. A. Kolawole, M. A. Ogunrinde, M. Lawal, R. A. Azeez, and A. Z. Afolabi, “Comparative Analysis of
Back-propagation Neural Network and K-Means Clustering Algorithm in Fraud Detection in Online Credit Card Transactions,”
Fountain Journal of Natural and Applied Sciences, vol. 8, no. 1, Oct. 2019, doi: 10.53704/fujnas.v8i1.315.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Alimatu-Saadia Yussiff (PhD) is a senior lecturer in the Department of Computer

Science and Information Technology at the University of Cape Coast (UCC), Ghana, where she
has taught a quiet numbers of computing courses. She obtained her PhD in Information
Technology from Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malysia and MSc. in Information
Technology from Sothern Polytechnic State University, Marieta – Georgia, USA. She has
published many papers in refereed journals and international conference proceedings. Her
research areas include e-learning, intelligent tutoring systems, User Experience design and
Evaluation of User Interfaces for mobile and computers, human computer interaction, mobile
and ubiquitous systems, and the role of women in technology and digital transformation. She is
actively involved in STEM initiatives in Ghana to encourage young women to pursue STEM
courses, soft skills and to advocate for secure internet use, internet safety and privacy online. She
has a strong interest in bridging gender gap in computing and to make the cyber/internet safe for
all. She is also a member of Ghana Science Association (GSA). She also serves as reviewer for
some journals. She can be contacted at email:[email protected]

Lemdi Frank Prikutse is a seasoned professional with over 20 years of experience

in the Telecommunications and ICT industry. He is currently pursuing a PhD in Computer
Science at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana. He is specializing in cryptographic techniques
for data security in cloud computing. He also holds a Master’s degree in Telecommunications
Engineering from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST),
Ghana. He also has a Bachelor of Engineering degree in Electronics from the Multimedia
University, Malysia. He is a recognized Telecoms Engineer and a member of the Ghana
Institution of Engineering. His research interests are cybersecurity and data science. He can be
contacted via email at: [email protected].

The best machine learning model for fraud detection on e-platforms: … (Alimatu – Saadia Yussiff)
204  ISSN: 2722-3221

Georgina Asuah is curently pursing a Ph.D. in Computer Science at Eotvos

Lorand University, Hungary. Researching on the Integration of Machine Learning and Artificial
Intelligence in SAP HANA Optimization. She also holds a Master of Computer Applications
(MCA) degree from Lovely Professional University, India with specialization in Data Science.
She obtained her fisrt degree in Mathematics (B. Ed Mathematics) from University of Cape
Coast, Ghana. Her research interests cover machine learning, artificial intelligence, data mining,
big data quality, enterprise resource planning (ERP), information sytems. She can be contacted
via email at: [email protected].

Abdul-Lateef Yussiff (PhD) is a senior lecturer in the Department of Computer

Science and Information Technology at the University of Cape Coast (UCC), Ghana. He
obtained PhD in Information Technology from Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Malysia and
obtained both MPhil Computer Science and MSc. Information Technology from Sothern
Polytechnic State University, Marieta – Georgia, USA. He has published many papers in
refereed journals and international conference proceedings. He specialices in Artificial
Intelligence, programming, problem analysis and image processing where he has published a
quite number of articles. His main research interests include artificial intelligence, image
processing, computer security and human computer interaction. He serves as reviewer for some
journals. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Emmanuel Dortey Tetteh is a Lecturer at the Department of Computer Science

and Information Technology, University of Cape Coast, Ghana. He obtained PhD in Information
and Communication Engineering from the University of Electronic Science and Technology of
China. His research interest includes software engineering, computer networking and
information systems. He can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Norshahila Ibrahim (PHD) is a senior lecturer at Faculty of Computing and Meta-

Technology, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia. She obtained her PhD in Information
Technology at Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. She has published many papers in refereed
journals and international conference proceedings. She is a proactive consultant for assessing
and validating research instruments in creative multimedia and digital games. In addition, she is
a member of the editorial board in the International Journal of Heritage, Art and Multimedia
(IJHAM), the Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal (ASTESJ),
and Asian Social Science Journal (ASSJ). Her research interest includes digital games, mobile
applications, multimedia applications, human computer and interaction and multimedia
education. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad Wan Fatimah Wan Ahmad has experienced of over
27 years as an academia. She obtained her PhD from the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. She
was formerly an Associate Professor with the Department of Computer and Information
Sciences, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS in Malaysia. She is currently working as a contract
staff with CIS Department. She has been appointed as an adjunct Associate Professor at the
School of Science and Technology, Asia e University (AeU), Subang Jaya 47500, Malaysia. Her
research interests include topics on multimedia, human-computer interaction, mathematics
education, e-learning and mobile learning. She led several research grants from Ministry of
Science Technology and Innovation and Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia. She won
several awards in national and international levels of exhibition and commercialised few
products. She can be contacted at email: [email protected].

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 5, No. 2, July 2024: 195-204