Page 916
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Online Payment Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning
Mr. Pushparaj P
1
, Pravin Rahul S K
2
, Navedh Akhtar Jamali N
3
, Ranjithkumar S
4
1
Assistant Professor/Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Erode Sengunthar
Engineering College, Erode, India
2,3,4
UG Scholar/Department of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science Erode Sengunthar Engineering
College, Erode, India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2026.150400082
Received: 10 April 2026; Accepted: 15 April 2026; Published: 12 May 2026
ABSTRACT
Online payment fraud detection is a critical problem in the financial sector due to the increasing volume of
digital transactions. This paper proposes a machine learning-based fraud detection system using CatBoost,
XGBoost, and a soft voting ensemble model. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is applied for dimensionality
reduction, and SMOTE is used to address class imbalance. The models are evaluated using precision, recall,
F1score, and AUC. Experimental results show that the ensemble model outperforms individual models with
improved accuracy and robustness. A real-time fraud detection system is also developed using Streamlit to
support both single and batch predictions. The proposed system demonstrates high efficiency and scalability for
practical applications.
Keywords: Fraud Detection, Machine Learning, CatBoost, XGBoost, PCA, SMOTE, Ensemble Learning
INTRODUCTION
Credit cards have transformed how we make purchases and manage our finances. A Online payment is a plastic
payment card provided by a financial organization, usually a bank that allows the cardholder to borrow money
to purchase goods and services. Unlike debit cards, which remove cash straight from the cardholder's bank
account, credit cards provide a line of credit that must be returned at a later date, typically with interest. The
cardholder may use the Online payment for a variety of purchases, both in person and online, making it a
convenient and generally recognized payment method across the world [1] [2]. Credit cards have become an
essential aspect of modern consumer culture, giving people more purchasing power and the freedom to manage
their finances properly. When a consumer applies for a Online payment and is authorized, the financial institution
sets them a credit limit, which is the most money they may borrow with the card. The cardholder may use the
Online payment to make purchases up to the limit. Each month, the Online payment firm delivers a billing
statement outlining the transactions that occurred during that time period as well as the minimum amount owing.
[4] [3] While paying the minimal amount keeps the account in good standing, it is best to pay off the whole debt
to prevent interest costs. If the cardholder fails to make the minimum payment on time, they risk incurring late
penalties and harming their credit score. Credit cards sometimes come with a variety of incentives and
advantages, such as cash back, travel points, or discounts, to encourage card use and loyalty [7]. Fraud detection
is a vital use of data analysis and machine learning that aims to identify and prevent fraudulent activity and
transactions across several domains. As technology progresses and financial transactions move to digital
platforms, the danger of fraudulent activity increases, making fraud detection more important than ever [8].
As the finance sector continues to undergo digital transformation, online payment systems are now ubiquitous
in modern business, giving users unprecedented speed and convenience. But the growth of this convenience has
simultaneously provided the perfect conditions for sophisticated fraudulent behaviour which causes a critical
risk that can result in significant global financial losses for individuals and organizations. The development of
Online Payment Fraud Detection Systems has consequently become a top priority to protect the integrity and
security of the digital economy. Unlike traditional, inflexible rulebased solutions that can't keep up with the rapid
Page 917
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
pace of change of techniques by cybercriminals, contemporary solutions such as this one use contemporary
machine learning (ML) algorithms to analyse complex transactional data. [6]ML models are capable to detect
subtle patterns and anomalies associated with fraudulent behaviours in real time, mitigating risk to the reliability
of transactions and reducing false positives.
Whether its Online payment fraud, insurance fraud, identity theft, or internet scams, companies and financial
institutions use sophisticated fraud detection systems to protect their assets, consumers, and preserve faith in
their services. Fraud detection systems examine massive volumes of transactional and behavioural data to find
anomalies and suspect trends. Fraud may have serious consequences, including financial losses, tarnished
reputations, and impaired consumer trust.
Fraud can have serious consequences, including financial losses, damaged reputations, and compromised
customer trust. Fraud detection systems play an important role in avoiding such repercussions by proactively
identifying and flagging questionable transactions. Effective fraud detection benefits financial organizations by
not just protecting their assets but also ensuring regulatory compliance and increasing client confidence.
Related Work
Maryam Habibpour [1] and colleagues propose in this work Numerous research have used deep neural networks
(DNNs) to identify Online payment fraud, with the goal of improving point prediction accuracy and avoiding
unwanted biases through the development of various network architectures or learning models. It is critical to
measure uncertainty in conjunction with point estimate because it lowers model unfairness and allows
practitioners to build dependable systems that prevent making incorrect judgments due to uncertainty. Because
fraudsters continuously change their strategies, DNNs meet observations that do not come from the same process
as the training distribution. Furthermore, because to the time-consuming nature of the procedure, only few
transactions are reviewed by experienced specialists in order to update DNNs. These characteristics make it
necessary to clearly evaluate the uncertainty associated with DNN predictions in real-world card fraud detection
scenarios.
In this paper, Asma Cherif [2] et al. Online payment fraud is becoming a serious and growing problem as new
technologies and communication channels emerge, such as contactless payment. This article gives a
comprehensive examination of current research on detecting and forecasting fraudulent Online payment
transactions from 2015 to 2021. The 40 papers picked for consideration are analysed and classified based on the
topics they cover (class imbalance problem, feature engineering, etc.) and the machine learning approach they
use (conventional and deep learning modelling). Our analysis reveals that deep learning has received little
research, implying that more research is needed to address the difficulties in detecting Online payment fraud
using cutting-edge technologies such as big data analytics, large-scale machine learning, and cloud computing.
Our study is a significant resource for academic and industrial researchers in analysing financial fraud detection
systems and designing trustworthy solutions by highlighting existing research challenges and future research
opportunities.
Dr. Tran Khanh Dang [3], ET. The issue of unbalanced datasets is a fundamental concern for constructing reliable
Online payment fraud (CCF) detection systems, as stated in this system. In this paper, we study and evaluate
current advances in deep reinforcement learning (DRL) and machine learning (ML) algorithms for CCF
detection systems, including fraud and non-fraud labels. The imbalanced CCF dataset is resampled with SMOTE
and ADASYN, two resampling methods. This balanced dataset is then exposed to ML algorithms to generate
CCF detection models. The imbalanced CCF dataset is then used to build detection algorithms with DRL.
Jacobo Chaquet-Ulldemolins [4] et al. proposed this system. Artificial intelligence (AI) has lately gained
popularity in the global economy due to its exceptional ability to analyse and model data in a variety of
disciplines. As a result of this condition, society is rapidly becoming more automated, and these new approaches
may be combined to form a beneficial tool for addressing the difficult challenge of credit fraud detection.
However, severe restrictions make it impossible for financial institutions to comply with them while employing
modern procedures. From a methodological approach, auto encoders have demonstrated effectiveness in finding
Page 918
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
nonlinear features in a range of problem domains. However, auto encoders are opaque and often referred to as
"black boxes." In this study, we provide an interpretable and impartial CFD approach.
Esra Faisal Malik [5], for example. As mentioned in this article financial crimes have progressively harmed
financial institutions. Various single and hybrid machine learning algorithms have been used to detect crimes
such as Online payment fraud. However, due to a lack of additional research on alternative hybrid algorithms
for a specific dataset, these techniques have significant limitations. This paper proposes and tests seven hybrid
machine learning models for detecting fraudulent acts on a real-world dataset. Modern machine learning
techniques were initially applied to detect Online payment fraud, and the best single algorithm from the first
phase was used to create the hybrid approaches. The hybrid models created were separated into two phases. Our
results revealed that the hybrid model Adaboost + LGBM is the best model due to its superior performance.
Future study should focus on exploring different hybridization strategies and Online payment domain algorithms.
In their article, Ibtissam Benchajiet [6] discusses a new system for Online payment fraud detection, making
improvements to current testing methods through the use of sequential modelling in traditional machine learning.
Because the effectiveness of any fraud detection technique depends on the features available for modelling, the
challenges & limitations of transactional payment data must be explored. Moreover, the study highlights the
importance of information or features, even in the form of time series data that represent transactions; the
detection of fraud is highly contingent on the presence of some essential predictive characteristics or information.
In addition, the model proposes the framework to be robust against fraudulent activities within a transactional
dataset, allowing for techniques that can be developed to optimize values that may not be present or available
within the dataset. The methodology for achieving this will be strengthened the combination of three
costeffective probabilistic dimensionality reduction feature cross-validator selection (LSTM). As Online
payments are increasingly common, it should not be surprising that fraudulent activities are occurring. To
properly combat and address fraud, financial institutions must take steps to enhance their monitoring systems to
decrease significant losses. The proposed model being summarized should attempt to address scam fraud
activities.
In this paper, Ebenezer Esenogho [7] and colleagues have suggested, "Recent improvements in e-commerce and
communication systems have played a major role in the increased usage of credit cards both for online purchases,
as well as traditional shopping. Nonetheless, the rate of fraudulent activity in online payment transactions has
steadily risen, leading to considerable losses for financial institutions worldwide. Creating efficient and reliable
fraud detection algorithms is important to minimizing financial loss resulting from fraudulent online payment
transactions; however, there are challenges, as most online payment datasets are characterized by severe class
imbalance. Additionally, using traditional machine learning algorithms for online payment fraud detection is not
efficient: machine learning algorithms described and applied in this manner are predetermined by their design,
which involves a static mapping of input vector to output vector, and cannot accommodate for the dynamic
purchasing habits of online payment customers.
According to Samaneh Sorournejad [8] et.al. in this article, Online payment plays a detrimental and significant
role in today's economy, as it has become an unavoidable element of household, business, and global activities.
Although credit cards can have tremendous advantages when used properly with restraint, significant damage to
credit and finances can be created through fraud. Numerous methods have been proposed to resolve the growth
of Online payment fraud, but all have the same purpose of detecting Online payment fraud. Each of these
techniques has certain drawbacks, advantages, and features. The focus of this paper is to address the challenges
of Online payment fraud detection and to review the state of the art in Online payment fraud detection techniques,
and datasets, and evaluation criteria. The advancements and drawbacks of the fraud detection techniques will be
presented and compared. In addition, a taxonomy of the aforementioned techniques is presented, distinguishing
between two principal strategies for fraud detection, namely, misuses (supervised) and anomaly detection
(unsupervised).
In this paper, Yue Tian [9] et.al. Have introduced several machine learning methods that provide efficient
transaction fraud detection, which is crucial to both individual and bank financial security. However, many
current methods use only original features or use manual feature engineering or both, which prevents them from
Page 919
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
learning discriminative representations from transactions. Since fraudsters often commit fraud by mimicking
cardholders' behavior, the performance of existing fraud detection models is poor. Here we present an Adaptive
Sampling and Aggregation-based Graph Neural Network (ASA-GNN) that learns discriminative representations
in order to optimize transaction fraud detection performance. A neighbour sampling strategy used to remove
noisy nodes and supply information to fraudulent nodes.
In this study, Imane Sadgali [10] et.al. suggests that as banking transactions continue to evolve, so does the risk
of online payment fraud, particularly with the rapid technological advances we are witnessing; fraudsters are
becoming more sophisticated and are continuously finding ways to work around the preventive models employed
by financial systems. Several studies have developed predictive models for Online Payment Fraud detection
using different machine learning methods. In this work, we propose an adaptive framework that enhances Online
Payment Fraud detection using models that have recently demonstrated high levels of accuracy and that integrate
the type of transaction and the clients profile.
Existing Work
In today's digital economy, credit cards are indispensable, and as their use has recently increased significantly,
so has Online payment theft. Algorithms for machine learning (ML) have been used to detect Online payment
fraud. However, it has proven challenging for ML classifiers to function at their best due to Online payment
holders' dynamic shopping habits and the issue of class imbalance. This paper presents a robust deep-learning
method to address this issue, which combines a multilayer Perceptron (MLP) as the meta-learner with long short-
term memory (LSTM) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) neural networks as base learners in a stacking ensemble
architecture. To balance the class distribution in the dataset, the hybrid synthetic minority oversampling
methodology and edited nearest neighbor (SMOTE-ENN) method are used. According to the experimental
findings, the suggested deep learning ensemble in combination with the SMOTE-ENN method produced
sensitivity and specificity values of 1.000 and 0.997, respectively, which are better than those of other commonly
employed ML classifiers and techniques in the literature.
Proposed System
The Online Payments Fraud Detection System follows a methodical approach to reliably identify fraudulent
transactions. First, transactional datasets are gathered and uploaded, which include features such as transaction
type, amount, account balances, and target fraud label. The feature names can either be uploaded from a file, or
taken from the dataset to maintain consistency. The data must also be cleaned for completion and correctness in
order to be prepared for modeling. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) is used to mitigate computational
complexity, while improving model performance. PCA will convert the original high-dimensional feature space
into a lowerdimensional representation that retains 95% of the variance. This step assists in minimizing the
potential redundancies and allows the models to focus on the more informative components that signify fraud
patterns. In the predictive modeling section, three approaches to model fitting are utilized - CatBoost with PCA,
XGBoost with PCA, and an Ensemble model which combines both by utilizing soft voting.
CatBoost addresses working with categorical features very well and is often reliable with imbalanced data, while
XGBoost excels at finding complex patterns in data and scaling the predictions. The Ensemble model combines
the advantages of both models, resulting in enhanced outcomes that are more trustworthy and more resilient. The
models' performances are determined using AUC, Precision, Recall, and F1Score, which permit comparison and
selection of the best model for deployment. Both the models, PCA transformer, and feature metadata are used to
deploy a web application based on Streamlit supporting transactions’ single and batch predictions. The
application provides the probabilities of fraud, confidence scores, probability distributions, and which model
agreed with each prediction. There is interactive visualizations included, such as bar charts, radar charts, and
feature tables to aid with interpretation and allow the user to see how the attributes of the transaction affected
the prediction. Overall, the approach provides a system for fraud detection for online payment platforms that is
reliable, scalable, and user-friendly, while integrating data preprocessing, dimensionality reduction, advanced
machine learning, and interactive visualization.
Page 920
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Description of the dataset
The dataset used in this study is a publicly available online payment fraud detection dataset obtained from
Kaggle. It contains a large number of financial transactions with both legitimate and fraudulent activities.
The dataset consists of approximately 50,000 transactions, with a highly imbalanced class distribution where
fraudulent transactions represent a very small percentage of the total data. This imbalance makes fraud detection
a challenging problem.
Each transaction includes features such as transaction type, amount, origin and destination account balances, and
time step. The target variable is ā€œisFraudā€, which indicates whether a transaction is fraudulent (1) or legitimate
(0).
To ensure proper evaluation, the dataset was divided into training and testing sets using an 80:20 stratified split,
preserving the class distribution in both sets.
Data pre processing
After the datasets are loaded, we perform preprocessing in order to prepare the data for the modeling process.
This process includes handling any missing or irrelevant values, along with preserving the ordering of features
for reliable input. We then proceed with a dimensionality-reduction technique known as Principal Component
Analysis (PCA) to reduce the dataset dimensionality while preserving 95% of the variance. Implementing PCA
will decrease computation costs and multi collinearity, ensuring a clean and optimal set of features for the models
to learn the patterns of fraudulent transactions.
Model Selection and Training
Three predictive models are applied:
1. CatBoost + PCA: CatBoost will be used since it can handle categorical variables well and does not over
fit on imbalanced data.
2. XGBoost + PCA: XGBoost captures complex relationships within the data and generates fast, high-
quality predictions.
3. Ensemble Learning (Voting Classifier): Soft voting is used to combine the probabilistic outputs of
CatBoost and XGBoost to gain reliability and robustness.
All models are trained on the PCA-transformed features, and the relevant hyper parameters were selected to
create better classification performance. The ensemble model will use the two models combined to reduce errors
and increase fraud detection.
Feature Name
Data Type
Description
step
Integer
Unit of time in the dataset (1 step = 1 hour)
type
Categorical
Type of transaction: CASH-IN, CASH-OUT, DEBIT,
PAYMENT, TRANSFER
amount
Float
Amount of the transaction
oldbalanceOrg
Float
Initial balance of the origin account before the transaction
newbalanceOrig
Float
New balance of the origin account after the transaction
oldbalanceDest
Float
Initial balance of the destination account before the transaction
newbalanceDest
Float
New balance of the destination account after the transaction
isFraud
Integer
Target label indicating fraud (1) or legitimate (0)
Table 1. Dataset Statistics
Page 921
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Model Evaluation
Standard assessment metrics are used to evaluate model performance: AUC (Area under the Curve), Precision,
Recall, and F1-Score, which assess the model's ability to identify fraudulent transactions correctly while
minimizing false positives and false negatives. The comparative evaluation ensures that the selected model or
ensemble is the best performing candidate for deployment.
Deployment in Streamlit
The trained models, as well as PCA transformers and feature metadata, are saved and deployed in a Streamlit-
based web app. The app supports:
o Single Transaction prediction: Users provide feature values and receive a probability score and
classification for fraud detection.
o Batch Prediction: Users upload CSV files with transaction records for batch processing.
o Interactive visualizations: Users see probability distributions, charts that demonstrate level of agreement
between models, and radar charts to help interpret model predictions.
o Feature transparency: Feature descriptions and counts are displayed for interpretability.
Results Interpretation and Decision Support
The system predicts fraudulent transactions and provides confidence scores and model agreement analyses,
allowing decision-makers to focus their investigations on the riskiest transactions. Predictions based on an
ensemble of models increase confidence; visualizations provide operational clarity.
Figure 1. System Block Diagram
Page 922
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Figure 2. System flow Diagram
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The Online Payments Fraud Detection System was tested with three methods: CatBoost + PCA; XGBoost +
PCA; and an Ensemble that combined both methods use soft voting. The models were trained on a dataset with
transactional features including transaction type, amount, and account balances to predict fraud (the target). PCA
was applied to the features to reduce their space while retaining 95% of the variance, which assisted in reducing
the computational load of the program and models. In search of CatBoost + PCA, the model's performance was
good handling categorical features and an imbalanced target. The classification report demonstrated very high
levels of precision and recall for both legit and fraud classes, and the AUC score was 0.985 suggesting that the
models accurately distinguished money laundering from non-fraudulent transactions.
Although the AUC for the XGBoost + PCA model slightly lowered to 0.982, it still performed notably well -
showing how XGBoost captured complex patterns in the data and provided predictions efficiently and quickly.
While precision and recall were lower than the CatBoost model, XGBoost remained competitive in fraud
detection. The
Ensemble model achieved the best overall performance based on the AUC score of 0.988, which combined
CatBoost + XGBoost predictions through soft voting. An ensemble model utilizes the best abilities of both
models and reduced individual weaknesses when producing predictions that were collectively stronger across
the sets of predictions. Evaluation of probability, model agreement, and batch prediction, indicated that the
ensemble benefited by performing consistently higher than both models across all evaluations. In the Streamlit
app, interactive visualizations such as bar charts, radar charts, and probability distributions were available to
support final model reporting, detection of behaviour in models, and prediction next to single transactions.
Page 923
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Additionally, a confidence score was displayed as an interpretation of single transactions predicting likelihood
of fraud, while batch predictions calculated aggregate statistics and offered file download. Overall findings
indicated that the proposed system, based on the evaluated models, was the best predictor model in terms of
ability, scalability, and interpretation of fraud detection that could be utilized in online payment.
Parameters for Evaluation
Accuracy
Accuracy measures the proportion of correctly predicted online payment approvals and rejections out of the total
applications processed by the model.
Formula:
Accuracy = (TP + TN) / (TP + TN + FP + FN)
Where:
o TP (True Positives): Number of Online payment applications correctly predicted as approved.
o TN (True Negatives): Number of Online payment applications correctly predicted as rejected.
o FP (False Positives): Number of Online payment applications incorrectly predicted as approved, but were
actually rejected.
o FN (False Negatives): Number of Online payment applications incorrectly predicted as rejected, but were
actually approved.
Precision
Precision evaluates the accuracy of the model’s positive predictions – i.e., how many of the applications
predicted as approved were actually approved
Formula:
Precision = TP / (TP + FP)
Recall
Recall measures the model’s ability to correctly identify all truly approved applications from the dataset
Formula:
Recall = TP / (TP + FN)
F1 Score
The F1 Score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. It offers a single performance metric that accounts
for both false approvals and false rejections, making it suitable when there’s class imbalance. Formula:
F1-Score = 2 Ɨ (Precision Ɨ Recall) / (Precision + Recall)
Model
Precision
Recall
AUC Score
CatBoost + PCA
0.92
0.89
0.985
Page 924
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
XGBoost + PCA
0.91
0.87
0.982
Ensemble (CatBoost+XGB)
0.93
0.90
0.988
Table 2. Performance table
Figure 2. Performance comparison
Single Prediction
Through the Single Prediction module, the user can input feature values of a single transaction and receive fraud
predictions from three models: CatBoost + PCA, XGBoost + PCA, and Ensemble Learning. For every
transaction, the system adds:
A classification (Fraud or Legitimate) based on a 0.5 probability threshold. o Confidence scores that are the
probability of fraud for each of the individual models, enumerating the strength of their prediction.
Overall, the CatBoost + PCA model provided accurate transaction classifications for many of the categorical
features, providing high confidence for transactions flagged for fraud. The XGBoost + PCA detected more
complex fraudulent patterns and provided additional independent support to the analysis, although it had
differences in confidence values in certain instances where the CatBoost flagged transactions for fraud. The
Ensemble model provided probability averages of predictions made by the CatBoost and XGBoost. It
consistently provided the most reliable classification all with the highest confidence score and consistently
minimized the misclassification probability. Probability bar chart comparisons provided a quick visual check on
how each model was assessing the transaction, which supports interpretability.
Overall, for single transactions, the system provided high accuracy and interpretability by providing:
o Fraudulent transactions above 0.85 confidence scores. o Legitimate transactions above 0.90 confidence
scores.
o Consistently better prediction stability and classification than the individual models.
o Predicted probabilities of fraud and classified labels from both CatBoost and XGBoost, as well as the
Ensemble model.
Page 925
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
o Aggregate statistics, including total frauds detected by each model.
o Likelihood analysis, where it is determined how many models agree on each transaction.
o Possible visualizations with probability distribution histograms and bar charts.
The analysis of the batch predictions can be summarized into the following patterns:
ļ‚· The CatBoost + PCA model detected a relatively high proportion of fraudulent transactions in comparison
to the other models because it is more robust with categorical features, matching the number of frauds
detected to actual fraud ratio closely.
ļ‚· The XGBoost + PCA model detected a few less fraudulent transactions, but the model was able to detect
some fraud patterns that were missed by CatBoost, making the XGBoost model complementary to
CatBoost. o The Ensemble model looked for the best of both models, in that although it detected the most
total amount of frauds and the least amount of false negatives, the discrepancies noted with the CatBoost
and XGBoost models were not included within the ensemble.
Model
Fraud
Probability
Prediction
CatBoost +
PCA
0.3358

XGBoost +
PCA
0.2901

Ensemble
Learning
0.3130

Model
Fraud
Cases
Detected
Total
Transactions
Detection
Rate
CatBoost
+
PCA
25,379
50,000
50.76%
XGBoost
+
PCA
25,423
50,000
50.85%
Ensemble
Learning
25,402
50,000
50.80%
Table 3. Probability Comparison Table
Table 4. Fraud Cases Detected by Model
Figure 3. Probability Comparison Table
Page 926
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Figure 4. Fraud Cases Detected by Model
Batch Prediction
The Batch Prediction module facilitates the processing of multiple transactions uploaded through a CSV file.
For every transaction, it computes:
Figure 5. Output images
Page 927
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
Explanation
This screen provides the real time prediction interface for the fraud detection system. The user receives a
detailed input form for each of the eight engineered transaction features. Once the user details the transaction
information and submits the request, the system will run the data through the three distinct deployed machine
learning models (CatBoost + PCA, XGBoost + PCA, and the Ensemble Model) and display the results
immediately. The output shows both the final classification (e.g., "Legitimate" or "Fraud") and the respective
Confidence Score (or fraud probability) suggested by each model, allowing for a quick, side-by-side
comparison of a single transaction's risk.
This detailed screen enables models to be assessed and compared based on performance metrics from the test
dataset. This dashboard provides clarity by comparing the CatBoost + PCA, XGBoost + PCA and Ensemble
Learning models side-by-side. A tabular format provides a convenient way to assess key classification metrics,
i.e. AUC Score, Precision, Recall and F1-Score - and bar charts provide easy directional comparison for each
classification metric, so that strengths and weaknesses are easy to assess. Importantly, there is also a Radar
Chart that allows for a combined multidimensional view of all performance metrics, and then a section for
recommendations for which model may work better based on operational needs - it is clear that the Ensemble
Model is the most robust choice for production.
The Batch Prediction screen is a convenient way to process and analyze a large number of transactions through
the uploading of a .csv file. After the batch processes, this section focuses on describing the individual or
combined performance of the models on the batch. The bar charts in the Prediction Summary describe the
aggregate number of fraud cases detected by each model. One of the more interesting features is the Agreement
and Disagreement Analysis Chart that provides a graphical representation of the amount of agreement among
the three models. This chart shows how many transactions were classified as fraud or non-fraud by 0, 1, 2, or all
3 models. This is an important feature to the understanding of model certainty and for identifying the most
ambiguous, possibly riskiest transactions requiring human follow-up.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this work, an effective online payment fraud detection system was developed using machine learning
techniques. The combination of CatBoost and XGBoost models through an ensemble approach resulted in
improved predictive performance. PCA was used for dimensionality reduction, and SMOTE was applied to
address class imbalance, which significantly enhanced the model’s ability to detect fraudulent transactions.
The system achieved high accuracy, precision, recall, and AUC scores, demonstrating its effectiveness in real-
world scenarios. Additionally, the deployment of the model using Streamlit provides a practical interface for
real-time fraud detection.
Future work can focus on integrating deep learning approaches such as neural networks and graph-based models
to capture more complex transaction patterns. Furthermore, real-time streaming data and largescale deployment
can be explored to improve scalability and adaptability in dynamic financial environments.
REFERENCES
1. M. Habibpour, H. Gharoun, M. Mehdipour, A. Tajally, H. Asgharnezhad, A. Shamsi, A. Khosravi, M.
Shafie-Khah, S. Nahavandi, and J. P. S. Catalao, ''Uncertainty-aware Online payment fraud detection
using deep learning 2021; arXiv:2107.13508.
2. A. Cherif, A. Badhib, H. Ammar, S. Alshehri, M. Kalkatawi, and A. Imine. "Online payment fraud
detection in the era of disruptive technologies: A systematic review." J. King Saud Univ. Computer and
Information Science, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 145-174, Jan. 2023, doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2022.11.008.
3. T. K. Dang, T. C. Tran, L. M. Tuan, and M. V. Tiep. "Machine learning based on resampling approaches
and deep reinforcement learning for Online payment fraud detection systems." Appl. Sci., vol. 11, no.
21, p. 10004, Oct. 2021; doi: 10.3390/app112110004.
Page 928
www.rsisinternational.org
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XV, Issue IV, April 2026
4. Chaquet-Ulldemolins et al., ''On the black-box problem for fraud detection using machine learning (I):
Linear models and informative feature selection,'' Applied Sciences, vol. 12, no. 7, p. 3328, March 2022,
doi: 10.3390/app12073328.
5. E. F. Malik, K. W. Khaw, B. Belaton, W. P. Wong, and X. Chew. "Online payment fraud detection using
a new hybrid machine learning architecture." Mathematics, vol. 10, no. 9, p. 1480, April 2022; doi:
10.3390/math10091480.
6. I. Benchaji, S. Douzi, B. El Ouahidi, and J. Jaafari, "Enhanced Online payment fraud detection using
attention mechanism and LSTM deep model," J. Big Data, vol. 8, no. 1, p. 151, December 2021; doi:
7. 10.1186/s40537-021-00541-8.
8. E. Esenogho, I. D. Mienye, T. G. Swart, K. Aruleba, and G. Obaido. "A neural network ensemble with
feature engineering for improved Online payment fraud detection." IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 16400–
16407, 2022; doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3148298.
9. E. Btoush, X. Zhou, R. Gururaian, K. Chan, and X. Tao, ''A survey on Online payment fraud detection
approaches in banking sector for cyber security,'' in Proc. 8th International Conf. Behav. Social Comput.
(BESC), Oct. 2021, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1109/BESC53957.2021.9635559.
10. Y. Xie, G. Liu, C. Yan, C. Jiang, M. Zhou, and M. Li, ''Learning transactional behavioral representations
for Online payment fraud detection IEEE Trans. Neural Networks and Learning Systems, early access,
October 5, 2022, doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3208967.
11. J. Yang & J. Guan "A Online payment prediction model based on feature optimization and the smote-
Xgboost algorithm," Information, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 475, Oct. 2022, doi: 10.3390/info13100475.