mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating Transfer Learning Methods on Real-World Data Streams: A Case Study in Financial Fraud Detection

arXiv 2508.02702 ↗First posted 29 Jul 2025q-fin.ST cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

When the available data for a target domain is limited, transfer learning (TL) methods can be used to develop models on related data-rich domains, before deploying them on the target domain. However, these TL methods are typically designed with specific, static assumptions on the amount of available labeled and unlabeled target data. This is in contrast with many real world applications, where the availability of data and corresponding labels varies over time. Since the evaluation of the TL methods is typically also performed under the same static data availability assumptions, this would lead to unrealistic expectations concerning their performance in real world settings. To support a more realistic evaluation and comparison of TL algorithms and models, we propose a data manipulation framework that (1) simulates varying data availability scenarios over time, (2) creates multiple domains through resampling of a given dataset and (3) introduces inter-domain variability by applying realistic domain transformations, e.g., creating a variety of potentially time-dependent covariate and concept shifts. These capabilities enable simulation of a large number of realistic variants of the experiments, in turn providing more information about the potential behavior of algorithms when deployed in dynamic settings. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed framework by performing a case study on a proprietary real-world suite of card payment datasets. Given the confidential nature of the case study, we also illustrate the use of the framework on the publicly available Bank Account Fraud (BAF) dataset. By providing a methodology for evaluating TL methods over time and in realistic data availability scenarios, our framework facilitates understanding of the behavior of models and algorithms. This leads to better decision making when deploying models for new domains in real-world environments.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2025.

Builds on

17 of 28 references.

References · 17

  1. 2016The Cityscapes Dataset for Semantic Urban Scene Understandingcited by 4,444
  2. 2015Domain-Adversarial Training of Neural Networkscited by 3,044
  3. 2018Moment Matching for Multi-Source Domain Adaptationcited by 1,331
  4. 2017Deep Hashing Network for Unsupervised Domain Adaptationcited by 1,188
  5. 2017Deeper, Broader and Artier Domain Generalizationcited by 986
  6. 2016Playing for Data: Ground Truth from Computer Gamescited by 818
  7. 2021Generalizing to Unseen Domains: A Survey on Domain Generalizationcited by 766
  8. 2021Domain Generalization: A Surveycited by 764
  9. 2018Deep Visual Domain Adaptation: A Surveycited by 635
  10. 2021Deep Neural Networks and Tabular Data: A Surveycited by 491
  11. 2018A Survey of Unsupervised Deep Domain Adaptationcited by 361
  12. 2019Semi-supervised Domain Adaptation via Minimax Entropycited by 335
5 more
  1. 2015Domain Generalization for Object Recognition with Multi-task Autoencoderscited by 253
  2. 2018Multinomial Adversarial Networks for Multi-Domain Text Classificationcited by 40
  3. 2022Turning the Tables: Biased, Imbalanced, Dynamic Tabular Datasets for ML Evaluationcited by 40
  4. 2014A Unified Perspective on Multi-Domain and Multi-Task Learningcited by 33
  5. 2022DomainATM: Domain Adaptation Toolbox for Medical Data Analysiscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.