What actions fix high precision but low recall in fraud detection?

Long Answer

A model with high precision but low recall in fraud detection signals that when it predicts fraud, it’s almost always right—but it fails to flag a large portion of fraudulent transactions. In practice, this means the bank or e-commerce system looks “clean” in reported fraud cases, yet significant fraud still leaks through. From a DevOps or MLOps perspective, addressing this requires technical adjustments to the model pipeline and transparent communication with stakeholders.

1) Diagnostic checks
First, verify whether low recall stems from skewed thresholds, unbalanced datasets, or concept drift. Fraud is rare by nature, often <1% of events, so models can bias toward precision. Audit the confusion matrix, ROC, and precision-recall curves to quantify trade-offs. Check class distribution, labeling accuracy, and whether new fraud patterns differ from training data.

2) Threshold tuning
Fraud detection models often use probability thresholds. Lowering the cutoff (e.g., from 0.9 to 0.7) boosts recall by flagging more suspicious transactions. Precision drops—more false positives—but overall fraud capture improves. Use business KPIs to find the “sweet spot,” for example maximizing expected value where missed fraud losses outweigh extra investigation costs.

3) Data and feature engineering
Fraud patterns shift quickly. Enrich features with behavioral signals (velocity of purchases, IP geolocation, device fingerprinting), graph relationships (shared cards, devices, merchants), and temporal patterns. Rebalance training with oversampling (SMOTE), undersampling, or cost-sensitive learning to penalize missed frauds more heavily. Continuously retrain with fresh fraud cases to capture evolving attack vectors.

4) Model strategies
Use ensembles: combine gradient boosting with anomaly detection (isolation forests, autoencoders) to improve coverage. Cascade models: a high-recall detector first, followed by a high-precision validator. Explore semi-supervised approaches for unlabeled suspicious activity. Deploy shadow models and compare recall/precision in real traffic before rollout.

5) Monitoring and DevOps integration
In production, wire dashboards in CloudWatch, Prometheus, or Grafana to track precision, recall, and fraud-loss metrics daily. Build alerting when recall drops below a threshold. Use canary deployments for threshold or model updates. Store predictions, outcomes, and investigation results in data lakes for continuous feedback loops.

6) Communication with stakeholders
Precision vs recall is a business trade-off:

• High precision, low recall: Minimal customer disruption but more undetected fraud (financial losses).
  
• High recall, lower precision: More fraud caught but increased false positives (customer friction, operational costs).
  

Frame the discussion in money and trust: “Raising recall from 40% to 70% may add 2% false positives, but prevents $2M in annual fraud loss.” Present A/B test results with business KPIs: fraud loss reduction, investigation workload, and customer complaint rates. Position thresholds as “dials” the business can tune depending on strategy—growth (accept risk) vs security (tighter checks).

7) Governance
Document threshold policies, change logs, and model retraining cadence. Involve compliance/legal teams to ensure regulatory reporting requirements are met. Transparency builds trust that model updates are controlled, measured, and reversible.

In short, fixing low recall means more aggressive detection (thresholds, features, ensembles) paired with clear cost/benefit framing. A DevOps-driven feedback loop ensures adjustments are observable, reversible, and continuously improved.

‍

Table

‍

Common Mistakes

Relying only on accuracy or precision without recall awareness. Keeping thresholds too high to look “clean,” letting fraud slip through. Ignoring data imbalance, so models rarely see true fraud in training. Overfitting on old fraud patterns and missing new ones. Deploying updates without canary testing or rollback, causing spikes in false positives. Communicating trade-offs in technical terms only—stakeholders need cost, trust, and workload framing. Failing to document threshold changes or retraining cycles, creating audit risk. Treating false positives as always worse than false negatives, when in fraud domains the real financial impact is often opposite.

‍

Sample Answers (Junior / Mid / Senior)

Junior:
“I’d check thresholds. If recall is low, I’d lower the cutoff so more fraud is flagged, then monitor false positives. I’d share results with my team.”

Mid:
“I’d analyze the confusion matrix, tune thresholds via PR curves, and enrich data with velocity or geolocation. I’d use resampling to rebalance fraud cases. With stakeholders, I’d explain trade-offs in terms of fraud losses prevented versus customer friction.”

Senior:
“I’d combine supervised and anomaly models in an ensemble. Thresholds become policy dials, tuned with business KPIs. We deploy via canaries, monitor precision/recall in Grafana, and log audit trails. Communication frames options: higher recall may cost investigation time but prevents millions in fraud. Governance ensures compliance and reversibility.”

‍

Evaluation Criteria

Interviewers look for recognition that high precision but low recall is dangerous in fraud: missed fraud costs real money. Strong answers include: (1) adjusting thresholds via ROC/PR trade-offs; (2) handling class imbalance with resampling or cost-sensitive learning; (3) enriching features to capture new fraud patterns; (4) using ensembles or anomaly detectors; (5) production practices like monitoring recall, canaries, rollback, and feedback loops. Crucially, candidates must communicate trade-offs in business terms: fraud losses avoided vs false positive cost. Weak answers stay technical only (“just lower threshold”), ignore business framing, or overlook DevOps practices (monitoring, audits, compliance).

‍

Preparation Tips

Practice by building a toy fraud model on imbalanced data. Plot precision-recall curves; simulate threshold shifts. Try resampling with SMOTE, cost-sensitive loss, and anomaly ensembles. Deploy a model to a sandbox and create dashboards tracking precision, recall, fraud loss, and investigation workload. Create a playbook for rollback when recall drops. Draft two communication templates: (1) technical (thresholds, curves, metrics), (2) stakeholder-friendly (cost savings, customer friction, risk appetite). Rehearse a 60-second summary explaining precision vs recall trade-offs with numbers, not jargon. This prep demonstrates both technical tuning and clear communication.

‍

Real-world Context

Banks often face this: a model flags only “obvious” fraud. Precision is 95%, but recall 30%. Losses stay high. Lowering the threshold plus adding device fingerprint features raised recall to 70%, precision dipped to 85%, but fraud loss dropped by $10M annually. An e-commerce company deployed an ensemble of XGBoost + autoencoder anomaly detection, catching subtle account takeovers. Investigation workload rose, but customer trust improved. In another case, governance failed—thresholds lowered without comms, causing spikes in false positives and customer complaints. Lessons: tune cautiously, monitor live KPIs, and always explain trade-offs in financial and trust terms.

‍

Key Takeaways

• High precision, low recall means safe predictions but missed fraud.
  
• Lower thresholds and enrich features to boost recall.
  
• Use ensembles, anomaly detection, and retraining on fresh fraud.
  
• Monitor recall in production; canary updates and rollback.
  
• Communicate trade-offs as cost vs customer friction.
  
  

Practice Exercise

Scenario:
Your fraud model shows 95% precision but only 35% recall. The CFO says fraud losses are rising, while operations want to keep customer friction low.

Tasks:

1. Pull confusion matrix and PR curves; calculate cost of false negatives (fraud loss) and false positives (investigation overhead).
   
2. Tune thresholds: test 0.9, 0.8, 0.7 cutoffs; compute new recall, fraud loss prevented, and false positive rate.
   
3. Add new features (velocity, IP/device fingerprints, merchant history) and retrain. Test ensembles (XGBoost + isolation forest).
   
4. Deploy changes in staging, then canary to 5% traffic; monitor fraud capture, false positives, and customer complaints.
   
5. Build Grafana dashboards showing daily precision, recall, fraud $ prevented, and investigation workload.
   
6. Draft stakeholder briefing: Option A (status quo), Option B (higher recall, more workload), Option C (ensemble, medium workload, lower losses). Frame in dollars, customer friction, and compliance risk.
   
7. Document changes in model registry, add rollback path, and schedule retraining every quarter.
   
   

Deliverable:
Dashboards and a 2-page summary showing how raising recall reduces fraud losses, what the trade-offs are, and how governance ensures safe, reversible deployment.