fraud-sentinel-1b-lora

fraud-sentinel-1b (LoRA adapter)

A LoRA fine-tune of Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct that emits a strict four-field JSON verdict on banking transactions. It exists to fix a specific failure: the base model answers is_fraud: false on essentially every transaction, no matter the evidence.

Recall 0% → 55.2% at 100% precision, training only 0.228% of the weights.

Built for the Azentio Relational Data Wrangler & Fraud Sentinel hackathon. Pipeline: https://github.com/aniruddhabagal/fraud-sentinel

What it does

Given a pre-computed evidence block, it returns exactly:

{
  "transaction_id": "TXN_0000796",
  "is_fraud": false,
  "confidence": 0.8,
  "justification": "One sentence citing the specific signals."
}

All arithmetic is computed upstream in pandas and handed over pre-formatted — a 1B model is an unreliable calculator, so it is never asked to be one. It weighs qualitative evidence and writes the justification.

Measured results

Stratified sample — all 29 rule-policy positives plus 90 negatives, guardrails disabled so these are the weights alone. A uniform sample cannot measure recall at a 3% positive rate.

On the six highest-risk transactions in the dataset: base 0/6, this model 6/6, with zero false positives on the lowest-risk rows.

The problem it solves

Asked in plain English, the base model correctly calls a ₹213,707 4am gambling transfer from a new device, overseas, unauthenticated, fraudulent. Asked for the same answer as a JSON boolean, it answers false — while writing a justification that says "strong indicators of potential fraud". The prior on the token following "is_fraud": swamps the evidence in the prompt. This fine-tune retrains that prior.

The first attempt failed — and why it matters

v1 used identical hyperparameters and data volume and changed nothing (still 0/6). The cause was label generation, not the model: every negative example shared one byte-identical justification string, repeated 76 times. The model memorised it and emitted it verbatim on obviously fraudulent transactions.

The fix was label diversity alone — negatives rewritten to cite the specific facts making each transaction unremarkable, rotated per row. Same 136 examples, same 300 iterations, same 7 minutes:

A constant-string label teaches a constant-string answer. Worth noting: v1 achieved a better validation loss (0.221 vs 0.230) while being strictly worse at the task, because the loss was rewarding memorisation. Low loss is not the objective.

Limitations — read before using

• Labels are synthetic. The source dataset shipped no is_fraud column. Training targets come from an explicit, auditable rule engine (weak supervision). The model distils that policy, not ground truth. Reported precision/recall is agreement with the policy, not fraud-detection accuracy.
• Recall is 55.2%, not 90%. It misses 13 of 29 policy positives. Useful as a first-pass triage layer, not as a sole control.
• Precision is measured on a stratified sample, which over-represents positives relative to the real 3% base rate. Treat 100% as "no false positives observed on 90 negatives", not as a population estimate.
• Trained on 136 examples over ~8.8 epochs. Validation loss bottomed at iteration 100 (0.221) and rose to 0.264 by 300 — this is the iter-100 checkpoint, deliberately not the final one. It is small-data, and it will not generalize far beyond the feature vocabulary it saw.
• The fused 4-bit artefact is slow (~26s/record vs ~0.5s for the base through the same runtime). For latency-sensitive use, serve the adapter against an unquantized base instead of this fused model.
• English only. The upstream sanitizer is an English-keyword detector, blind to translation and paraphrase. This model is one layer of a defense-in-depth pipeline, not a standalone guarantee.
• Not for production credit decisions. A research artefact from a 90-minute hackathon.

Training

Adversarial examples were minted by injecting attack strings into copies of real rows while keeping the pre-attack verdict, teaching that an instruction found in the data is evidence rather than a command. Note that the pipeline's headline "injection resistance" metric is near-vacuous as written — it rewards any model answering false — and should be rescored on rows whose pre-attack verdict was already fraud.

Usage

from mlx_lm import load, generate

model, tokenizer = load("aniruddhabagal/fraud-sentinel-1b")
messages = [
    {"role": "system", "content": SYSTEM_PROMPT},   # see repo: src/fraud_sentinel/infer.py
    {"role": "user", "content": evidence_block},
]
prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template(messages, add_generation_prompt=True)
print(generate(model, tokenizer, prompt=prompt, max_tokens=220))

Or serve it on any OpenAI-compatible endpoint (LM Studio, mlx-lm server, vLLM) and point the pipeline at it:

python scripts/run_pipeline.py --model fraud-sentinel-1b --base-url http://localhost:1234/v1

The system prompt matters — it is what fences untrusted text. Use the one in src/fraud_sentinel/infer.py.

License

Inherits Llama 3.2 Community License from the base model.