This benchmark evaluates whether synthetic tabular data generators preserve complex behavioral fraud patterns beyond simple statistical fidelity. It specifically probes temporal inter-event timing, burst-like transaction sequences, shared-infrastructure graph motifs across accounts, and velocity-rule trigger rates. Use when the user wants to benchmark on IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection, Amazon Fraud Dataset, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports P1: IET W1.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill behavioral-fraud-patterns-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Behavioral Fraud Patterns Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-behavioral-fraud-patterns-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: behavioral-fraud-patterns-eval
description: This benchmark evaluates whether synthetic tabular data generators preserve complex behavioral fraud patterns beyond simple statistical fidelity. It specifically probes temporal inter-event timing, burst-like transaction sequences, shared-infrastructure graph motifs across accounts, and velocity-rule trigger rates. Use when the user wants to benchmark on IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection, Amazon Fraud Dataset, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports P1: IET W1.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2604.13125
bibtex_key: sajja2026synthetictabular
confidence: high
---
# behavioral-fraud-patterns-eval
> Synthetic Tabular Generators Fail to Preserve Behavioral Fraud Patterns: A Benchmark on Temporal, Velocity, and Multi-Account Signals — Sajja (2026) (arXiv:2604.13125, 2026)
## What this evaluates
This benchmark evaluates whether synthetic tabular data generators preserve complex behavioral fraud patterns beyond simple statistical fidelity. It specifically probes temporal inter-event timing, burst-like transaction sequences, shared-infrastructure graph motifs across accounts, and velocity-rule trigger rates.
## Datasets
- **IEEE-CIS Fraud Detection** — total 590540; splits: train (472432), test (118108)
- **Amazon Fraud Dataset** — total 151112; splits: test (151112)
## Metrics
- `P1: IET W1` **(primary)** — range: seconds
- Wasserstein-1 distance ($W_1$) between real and synthetic inter-event timing distributions for fraud transactions. Computed on a 50/50 real-data split to establish a baseline.
- `P1: within-entity autocorrelation gap` — range: dimensionless
- Absolute difference in autocorrelation of inter-event times within the same entity between real and synthetic data.
- `P2: active lifetime W1` — range: seconds
- Wasserstein-1 distance between real and synthetic active lifetime distributions (time from first to last transaction) for fraud entities.
- `P2: burst length W1` — range: dimensionless
- Wasserstein-1 distance between real and synthetic burst length distributions (transactions within a 5-minute window) for fraud entities.
- `P3: fan-out W1` — range: dimensionless
- Wasserstein-1 distance between real and synthetic fan-out distributions (number of unique devices/IPs per entity) for fraud entities.
- `P4: mean velocity-rule trigger rate gap` — range: dimensionless
- Absolute difference in the mean rate of velocity-rule triggers between real and synthetic transaction sequences.
## Input / output format
**Input**: Real tabular transaction records (48 curated behavioral columns) used to train generative models; evaluation receives synthetic tabular rows with externally assigned pseudo-entity IDs.
**Output**: Synthetic tabular rows matching the 48-column schema (TransactionDT, TransactionAmt, isFraud, card4, C1–C14, D1–D15, M1–M9, addr1, addr2, dist1, dist2, P_emaildomain, R_emaildomain), with pseudo-entity group labels assigned post-generation.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_degradation_ratio(predictions, gold, pattern):
gold_baseline = compute_pattern_metric(gold, pattern)
synth_score = compute_pattern_metric(predictions, pattern)
return gold_baseline / synth_score
```
## Common pitfalls
- Row-independent generators cannot natively produce entity identifiers, requiring external pseudo-entity assignment that artificially inflates behavioral fidelity scores.
- Excluding high-cardinality entity columns (e.g., card1) and opaque risk scores (V-columns) during training isolates behavioral coherence but masks downstream utility and scalability failures.
- Unconditional sampling on VAE/GAN architectures causes minority-class (fraud) collapse, necessitating conditional sampling to restore realistic fraud rates before evaluation.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> We evaluate P1, P2, and P4 on this dataset; it is the richest publicly available source of within-entity transaction sequences. We evaluate P3 (shared-infrastructure graph motifs) exclusively on this dataset; the device and IP co-occurrence structure yields high attribute fan-out for fraud-linked entities, providing a strong signal for graph motif evaluation.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{sajja2026synthetictabular,
title={Synthetic Tabular Generators Fail to Preserve Behavioral Fraud Patterns: A Benchmark on Temporal, Velocity, and Multi-Account Signals},
author={Sajja (2026)},
year={2026},
note={arXiv:2604.13125}
}
```
- arXiv: 2604.13125
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!