--- license: cc-by-4.0 task_categories: - tabular-classification language: - en tags: - fraud-detection - synthetic-identity - model-risk-management - osfi-e23 - responsible-ai - canada - financial-services pretty_name: CanFraudBench — Track A (Synthetic Identity) size_categories: - 10K **The benchmark's core lesson:** the reference baseline scores **0.969 AUC** > and still **FAILS overall**, because its Adverse Impact Ratio (0.59) breaches > the four-fifths fairness rule. Discrimination without governance is not a > passing model. --- ## What's in this dataset A reproducible, **fully synthetic** set of Canadian onboarding applications. **No real person's data is present.** (See *Privacy & Ethics* below.) | | | |---|---| | Records | 20,000 | | Legitimate | 16,000 | | Fraud | 4,000 (20%) | | Seed | 23 (deterministic) | | Format | JSON Lines (`.jsonl`) | ### Fraud typology breakdown Fraud labels are grounded in documented synthetic-identity typologies so that performance can be sliced by fraud type (not just an aggregate AUC): | Typology | Count | Description | |---|---|---| | `fabricated` | 1,200 | Wholly invented identity; no real underlying person | | `blended` | 1,200 | "Frankenstein" — real structural identifier + fabricated name/DOB | | `file_aged` | 800 | Thin file artificially aged (nominee/piggyback tradelines) | | `linked_cluster` | 600 | Member of an application cluster (device/address reuse) | | `inconsistent` | 200 | Internally contradictory fields a univariate rule would miss | | `legitimate` | 16,000 | Internally consistent legitimate applicant | ### Record schema Each line is a JSON object: ```json { "id": "can_0000001", "raw": { "first_name": "...", "last_name": "...", "dob": "...", "address": {...}, "sin": "...", "...": "..." }, "features": { "f_sin_luhn_valid": 0, "f_name_struct_anomaly": 0.0, "f_dob_doc_inconsistency": 0.0, "f_tenure_vs_age_gap": 0.0, "f_cluster_link_score": 0.0, "f_field_entropy": 0.51, "f_thin_file": 0, "f_province_group": 0 }, "protected_group": 0, "typology": "legitimate", "label": 0 } ``` `features` is a ready-to-use numeric vector; `raw` is provided for anyone who wants to engineer their own features. `protected_group` is a synthetic region grouping included **solely** so fairness metrics (Adverse Impact Ratio, equal opportunity) are computable — it encodes no real demographic fact. --- ## Usage ```python import json, urllib.request URL = "https://huggingface.co/datasets/CrillyPienaah/CanFraudBench/resolve/main/canfraudbench_synthid_n20000_seed23.jsonl" records = [json.loads(l) for l in urllib.request.urlopen(URL)] X = [list(r["features"].values()) for r in records] y = [r["label"] for r in records] groups = [r["protected_group"] for r in records] # ... train your model, then evaluate with the CanFraudBench metrics + E-23 # governance mapping from the code repo to produce an evidence pack. ``` To reproduce this exact file from scratch: ```bash git clone https://github.com/CrillyPienaah/canfraudbench cd canfraudbench python -m canfraudbench.synthid.generate --n 20000 --seed 23 --out data/synthid/ ``` The seed makes generation deterministic — the regenerated file matches this one. --- ## Submitting to the leaderboard CanFraudBench is **submission-by-protocol**: you run the evaluation harness on your own model and submit the produced evidence pack (metrics, never raw data). Rankings sort by **E-23 status first**, then mean per-typology recall, then AUC — a high-AUC model that fails a governance dimension does not outrank a governable one. See the [code repo](https://github.com/CrillyPienaah/canfraudbench) for the submission protocol. --- ## Privacy & Ethics - **Fully synthetic.** Names are sampled from generic token lists, not registries. Addresses use real province/city *labels* with fictitious civic numbers and documentation-style postal codes. - **No real Social Insurance Numbers.** Most records carry numbers that deliberately *fail* the Luhn checksum so they can never collide with an issued SIN; the `blended` typology uses a Luhn-valid-but-fictitious, overwhelmingly unassigned number to exercise checksum-aware detectors. These are test fixtures, not PII. - **Honest scope.** This v0.1 generator is a *typology-grounded simulator*, not a differential-privacy mechanism trained on real data — because it never touches real data, a DP guarantee would be vacuous. This is stated plainly rather than overclaimed. See `docs/DATA_ETHICS.md` in the code repo. - **Not affiliated with or endorsed by OSFI.** The benchmark *maps to* the public E-23 guideline; it is not approved by any regulator and is decision-support, not regulatory advice. ## License CC BY 4.0 for this generated dataset. Benchmark code is Apache-2.0. ## Citation ```bibtex @misc{canfraudbench2026, title = {CanFraudBench: A Canadian Identity-Fraud Benchmark with OSFI E-23 Governance Mapping}, author = {Pienaah, Christopher}, year = {2026}, url = {https://github.com/CrillyPienaah/canfraudbench} } ```