Application of AI-based Models for Online Fraud Detection and Analysis

TL;DR

This paper systematically reviews AI and NLP techniques for online fraud detection, highlighting current methods, challenges, and the need for generalized models amid evolving scam tactics.

Contribution

It provides a comprehensive overview of NLP-based online fraud detection methods, datasets, and performance metrics, identifying gaps and challenges in current research.

Findings

Research covers 16 different fraud types

Models lack generalization across scams

Data limitations and biases affect model performance

Abstract

Fraud is a prevalent offence that extends beyond financial loss, causing psychological and physical harm to victims. The advancements in online communication technologies alowed for online fraud to thrive in this vast network, with fraudsters increasingly using these channels for deception. With the progression of technologies like AI, there is a growing concern that fraud will scale up, using sophisticated methods, like deep-fakes in phishing campaigns, all generated by language generation models like ChatGPT. However, the application of AI in detecting and analyzing online fraud remains understudied. We conduct a Systematic Literature Review on AI and NLP techniques for online fraud detection. The review adhered the PRISMA-ScR protocol, with eligibility criteria including relevance to online fraud, use of text data, and AI methodologies. We screened 2,457 academic records, 350 met our eligibility criteria, and included 223. We report the state-of-the-art NLP techniques for analysing various online fraud categories; the training data sources; the NLP algorithms and models built; and the performance metrics employed for model evaluation. We find that current research on online fraud is divided into various scam activitiesand identify 16 different frauds that researchers focus on. This SLR enhances the academic understanding of AI-based detection methods for online fraud and offers insights for policymakers, law enforcement, and businesses on safeguarding against such activities. We conclude that focusing on specific scams lacks generalization, as multiple models are required for different fraud types. The evolving nature of scams limits the effectiveness of models trained on outdated data. We also identify issues in data limitations, training bias reporting, and selective presentation of metrics in model performance reporting, which can lead to potential biases in model evaluation.