top of page

Fraud detection

Fraud detection

In a fraud detection use case, small language models (SLMs) and large language models (LLMs) can be compared based on their efficiency, speed, and cost-effectiveness in identifying fraudulent transactions or activities. Fraud detection requires analyzing patterns in transaction data, flagging anomalies, and issuing alerts in near real-time to minimize financial loss and risk. This comparison will focus on how SLMs perform better in specific aspects like speed and resource usage, while LLMs may offer higher precision but at a cost.


Use Case: Fraud Detection in a Financial Services Company


Scenario

A financial services company uses AI models to monitor real-time transactions for suspicious activities, such as unauthorized access, credit card fraud, or money laundering. The system must process thousands of transactions per second and generate alerts when an anomaly is detected.


Key Metrics for Comparison

  • Latency: Time taken by the model to flag a suspicious transaction.

  • Memory Usage: The RAM required to process transaction data and detect anomalies.

  • Throughput: Number of transactions processed per second.

  • False Positives: The rate at which legitimate transactions are flagged as fraudulent.

  • False Negatives: The rate at which fraudulent transactions are missed.

  • Accuracy: The precision of the model in detecting fraudulent transactions without missing legitimate ones.

  • Resource Cost: The computational resources needed to run the model efficiently.

  • Energy Efficiency: Power consumed while processing transaction data.


Metric

  • Latency

  • Memory Usage (RAM)

  • Throughput

  • False Positives

  • False Negatives

  • Accuracy

  • Resource Cost


Small Language Model (SLM)

  • 30 ms

  • 300 MB

  • 5,000 transactions/sec

  • 8%

  • 6%

  • 86%

  • Low (CPU-based)


Large Language Model (LLM)

  • 400 ms

  • 6 GB

  • 500 transactions/sec

  • 4%

  • 3%

  • 93%

  • High (GPU-based)


Technical Insights

  • Latency and Throughput:

    • SLM: With a latency of 30 ms, the small language model excels at detecting fraud quickly, processing 5,000 transactions per second. This is crucial in environments like payment gateways or e-commerce platforms where millions of transactions occur, and fraudulent activities need to be caught immediately.

    • LLM: The large language model, while more accurate, has a latency of 400 ms and can only process 500 transactions per second. This reduced throughput could delay fraud detection, allowing fraudulent transactions to complete before an alert is triggered, especially in high-volume environments.


  • Memory Usage and Resource Cost:

    • SLM requires just 300 MB of RAM, making it suitable for deployment in environments with limited computational resources. This makes it cost-effective for on-premise or edge processing without relying heavily on cloud infrastructure. This setup is particularly beneficial for smaller financial institutions or businesses that cannot afford extensive cloud-based systems.

    • LLM, by contrast, requires 6 GB of RAM, making it necessary to use GPU-accelerated cloud resources, which are expensive and may introduce additional latency due to network dependency. This makes LLMs less practical for real-time fraud detection when speed and cost-efficiency are top priorities.


  • False Positives and Negatives:

    • LLMs offer greater precision, with a false positive rate of 4% and a false negative rate of 3%, meaning they are better at correctly identifying both fraudulent and legitimate transactions. However, the SLM’s false positive rate of 8% and false negative rate of 6% are still within acceptable thresholds for many financial institutions, especially when speed is prioritized.

    • The higher false positive rate of SLMs can be managed by building a second-stage review process, allowing human intervention before automatically blocking a transaction, while the false negative rate (i.e., missing actual fraud) is kept relatively low.


  • Accuracy:

    • The LLM’s accuracy of 93% is higher than the SLM’s 86%, meaning it is better at making nuanced distinctions between fraudulent and legitimate activity. In scenarios where a marginal increase in detection accuracy can prevent millions of dollars in fraud, the LLM might be worth the additional cost and complexity.

    • For smaller companies or low-stakes environments, the SLM’s 86% accuracy strikes a balance between performance and cost, while still effectively catching most fraud cases.


  • Energy Efficiency:

    • SLMs are highly energy-efficient, consuming minimal power, which makes them ideal for deployment in low-power devices or on-premise systems. This helps companies looking to reduce operational costs and environmental impact.

    • LLMs, on the other hand, are resource-intensive, consuming significantly more power due to their need for GPU acceleration. The high energy costs are a factor when companies are focused on sustainability or reducing their carbon footprint.


Business Insights

  • Cost Efficiency:

    • For many businesses, the SLM’s lower resource requirements make it the more affordable option. Since it can run on standard CPU infrastructure, it reduces the need for costly cloud computing and GPU resources. This makes it ideal for smaller financial institutions, startups, or businesses that need real-time fraud detection without heavy investment in infrastructure.

    • LLMs, while offering superior accuracy, are much more expensive to operate due to their need for high-end hardware and cloud infrastructure. This can drive up operational costs, especially when deployed across multiple locations or on a large scale.


  • Speed and Real-Time Performance:

    • In a high-volume transaction environment, speed is of the essence. The SLM’s 30 ms latency ensures near-instantaneous detection of fraud, allowing companies to stop suspicious transactions before they are completed. This is particularly valuable for businesses with online payment systems, where transaction speeds are high, and delays can lead to significant losses.

    • The LLM’s slower response time of 400 ms might introduce delays that can allow fraudulent transactions to slip through. For companies that prioritize speed over absolute accuracy, the SLM provides a faster, more responsive solution.


  • Scalability:

    • SLMs are easier to scale across multiple platforms or devices, as they can be deployed on on-premise servers or edge devices with minimal computational power. This makes it easier for organizations to deploy fraud detection solutions at multiple branch locations or integrate them into existing systems without overhauling their infrastructure.

    • LLMs, due to their higher memory and resource requirements, can be more challenging and costly to scale. They are best suited for large financial institutions with centralized cloud infrastructure and the ability to handle the associated costs.


  • Trade-offs: Accuracy vs. Speed:

    • LLMs, with their 93% accuracy, are suitable for high-stakes financial environments where even a slight reduction in false negatives can save millions in fraud. In this case, the additional processing time and resource cost can be justified.

    • For mid-tier businesses or smaller banks, where speed and cost-efficiency are more important than squeezing out a few percentage points of accuracy, SLMs offer an effective solution. The 86% accuracy still allows them to catch most fraudulent transactions, while processing large volumes of transactions in real-time and keeping costs low.


  • Energy Efficiency and Sustainability:

    • As companies focus more on sustainability goals, the low energy consumption of SLMs makes them an attractive option. Small financial institutions can deploy energy-efficient models across multiple branches without increasing their energy footprint significantly.

    • The LLM’s high energy requirements are not ideal for companies aiming to reduce their environmental impact or cut down on operational costs associated with power consumption.


Benchmarking Example

A mid-sized financial services firm needs to process 100,000 transactions per second to monitor for fraudulent activities in real-time.


  • SLM:

    • Latency: 30 ms per transaction

    • Total time to process 100,000 transactions: 2 seconds

    • Memory usage: 300 MB

    • Throughput: 5,000 transactions per second


  • LLM:

    • Latency: 400 ms per transaction

    • Total time to process 100,000 transactions: 80 seconds

    • Memory usage: 6 GB

    • Throughput: 500 transactions per second


Conclusion

For fraud detection, small language models (SLMs) outperform large language models (LLMs) in terms of speed, scalability, and resource efficiency, making them ideal for real-time detection systems in cost-sensitive environments.


  • Efficiency and Speed: With a 30 ms response time and 5,000 transactions per second throughput, the SLM provides a fast and efficient fraud detection solution. This makes it well-suited for real-time environments where immediate detection is essential.

  • Cost Savings: The SLM’s lightweight infrastructure significantly reduces costs, making it ideal for smaller institutions and businesses that don’t have the financial resources for expensive GPU-powered solutions.

  • Scalability and Sustainability: Small language models offer scalability across devices while being energy-efficient, aligning with companies focused on cost-efficiency and environmental sustainability.


While LLMs offer higher accuracy and fewer false positives, the SLM provides a well-balanced approach for most real-time fraud detection scenarios.


bottom of page