PREDIKSI FRAUD TRANSAKSI DOMPET DIGITAL MENGGUNAKAN ALGORITMA CATBOOST
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61722/jssr.v4i5.12752Keywords:
fraud detection, digital transactions, mobile money, CatBoost, Random Forest, imbalanced dataset, machine learningAbstract
The growth of digital transactions via digital wallet and mobile money services has heightened the need for fraud detection systems capable of accurately identifying suspicious transactions. A major challenge in fraud detection is class imbalance, where the volume of fraudulent transactions is significantly lower than that of legitimate ones. This study aims to analyze and compare the performance of Random Forest and CatBoost algorithms in detecting fraud within digital transactions using the PaySim dataset. Random Forest served as the benchmark model, while CatBoost was the primary model evaluated through both baseline configurations and hyperparameter tuning. Class imbalance was addressed using class weighting, and the dataset was partitioned using an 80:20 train-test split combined with stratified sampling. Model performance was evaluated using Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1-Score, ROC-AUC, and PR-AUC, alongside an analysis of False Positives and False Negatives. The results indicate that while Random Forest achieved a Recall of 98.78%, it produced 18,284 False Positives, resulting in a Precision of 8.15%. The CatBoost Baseline model achieved a Precision of 79.19%, Recall of 85.27%, F1-Score of 82.12%, ROC-AUC of 99.92%, and PR-AUC of 90.93%. Following hyperparameter tuning, the CatBoost Tuned model improved its Recall to 92.08%, ROC-AUC to 99.96%, and PR-AUC to 94.46%, while reducing the number of False Negatives from 242 to 130 transactions; however, Precision dropped to 71.46% and the F1-Score to 80.48%. These findings demonstrate that CatBoost Tuned possesses superior fraud detection capabilities—particularly in maximizing Recall and minimizing False Negatives—whereas CatBoost Baseline offers a better balance between Precision and Recall at the classification threshold used in this study.
References
Gomber, P., Kauffman, R. J., Parker, C., & Weber, B. W. (2018). On the Fintech Revolution: Interpreting the Forces of Innovation, Disruption, and Transformation in Financial Services. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(1), 220–265.
Arner, D. W., Barberis, J., & Buckley, R. P. (2016). The Evolution of Fintech: A New Post-Crisis Paradigm? Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47(4), 1271–1319.
Phua, C., Lee, V., Smith, K., & Gayler, R. (2010). A Comprehensive Survey of Data Mining-Based Fraud Detection Research. Artificial Intelligence Review, 34(1), 1–14.
Dal Pozzolo, A., Caelen, O., Le Borgne, Y.-A., Waterschoot, S., & Bontempi, G. (2014). Learned Lessons in Credit Card Fraud Detection from a Practitioner Perspective. Expert Systems with Applications.
Mitchell, T. M. (1997). Machine Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Breiman, L. (2001). Random Forests. Machine Learning, 45(1), 5–32.
Prokhorenkova, L., Gusev, G., Vorobev, A., Dorogush, A. V., & Gulin, A. (2018). CatBoost: Unbiased Boosting with Categorical Features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 31.
Lopez-Rojas, E., & Axelsson, S. (2016). PaySim: A Financial Mobile Money Simulator for Fraud Detection.
Gupta, P., Varshney, A., Khan, M. R., Ahmed, R., Shuaib, M., & Alam, S. (2023). Unbalanced Credit Card Fraud Detection Data: A Machine Learning-Oriented Comparative Study of Balancing Techniques. Procedia Computer Science, 218, 2575–2584.
Chawla, N. V. (2009). Data Mining for Imbalanced Datasets: An Overview. In Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook. Springer.
He, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009). Learning from Imbalanced Data. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 21(9), 1263–1284.
Fawcett, T. (2006). An Introduction to ROC Analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874.
Dorogush, A. V., Ershov, V., & Gulin, A. (2018). CatBoost: Gradient Boosting with Categorical Features Support. arXiv:1810.11363.
Géron, A. (2022). Hands-On Machine Learning with Scikit-Learn, Keras, and TensorFlow (3rd ed.). O'Reilly Media.
Ramineni, P., & Mastouri, R. (2025). Credit Card Fraud Detection Using CatBoost.
CatBoost, XGBoost, and LightGBM: A Comparative Study for Financial Fraud Detection. (2025). Preprint.
Assabil, J. J., & Obagbuwa, I. C. Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning Algorithms: A Comparative Study of Six Models. International Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applications in Engineering.
Sopiyan, M., Fauziah, F., & Wijaya, Y. F. Fraud Detection Using Random Forest, Logistic Regression, and Gradient Boosting. JUITA.
Handayani, K. et al. Analisis Kinerja Logistic Regression dan Random Forest pada Deteksi Fraud E-Commerce Menggunakan SMOTE & PCA. Jurnal Sistem Informasi Akuntansi.
Whitrow, C., Hand, D. J., Juszczak, P., Weston, D., & Adams, N. M. (2009). Transaction Aggregation as a Strategy for Credit Card Fraud Detection. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 18(1), 30–55.
Nguyen, N. et al. (2022). A Proposed Model for Card Fraud Detection Based on CatBoost and Deep Neural Network. IEEE Access.
Almalki, F., & Masud, M. (2025). Financial Fraud Detection Using Explainable AI and Stacking Ensemble Methods.
Wang, Y. (2025). A Data Balancing and Ensemble Learning Approach for Credit Card Fraud Detection. Preprint.
Yu, S., Chang, V., Huỳnh, G. L., Jesus, V., & Luo, J. (2025). Advanced Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms in Credit Card Fraud Detection. SciTePress (Procedia).
Optimizing Credit Card Fraud Detection with Random Forests and SMOTE. (2025). Scientific Reports.
Phua, C. R. S. et al. (2025). Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Ensemble Variation: Logistic Regression, SVC, and Random Forest.
Ibrahim, M. M., & Alfauzan, S. (2026). Analisis Kinerja Model Machine Learning untuk Mendeteksi Transaksi Fraud pada Sistem Pembayaran Online.
Icha, N. N., Lopes, D. S. P., & Hanafi, M. (2024). Optimasi Deteksi Penipuan Kartu Kredit Menggunakan Regresi Logistik.
Carcillo, F., Le Borgne, Y. A., Caelen, O., Bontempi, G., et al. (2021). Combining Unsupervised and Supervised Learning in Credit Card Fraud Detection. Information Sciences.
Aggarwal, C. C. (2017). Outlier Analysis (2nd ed.). Springer.
Chicco, D., & Jurman, G. (2020). The Advantages of the Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC) over F1 Score and Accuracy in Binary Classification Evaluation. BMC Genomics, 21(6).
GSMA. (2024). State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2024.
Worldpay. (2024). Global Payments Report 2024.
Bank Indonesia. (2024). Statistik Sistem Pembayaran Indonesia 2024.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JOURNAL SAINS STUDENT RESEARCH

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.











