new_logo_mona_white

 

 

WHAT TO MONITOR | FRAUD DETECTION

 

A Model Monitoring Framework for

Fraud Detection Models

 

 

Introduction and Purpose

 
Fraud detection models operate in a high-stakes environment, where threats evolve daily, where milliseconds matter, and where errors don’t just degrade performance—they cost money, customers, and compliance. Your job isn’t just to deploy models, it's to protect their integrity, prove their effectiveness, and keep the fraud ops team one step ahead. This guide gives you a framework to monitor fraud detection models in production. It’s not just theory—it’s a blueprint to start building today.

Why Traditional Monitoring Falls Short

 
Fraud models fail in subtle ways—through gradual performance decay across segments, silent data quality issues, or outdated training data that no longer generalizes. Traditional monitoring tools miss these signals, and human reviewers are often left without insight into why the model struggled. Monitoring must go beyond accuracy metrics and APMs. It should capture model behavior, data integrity, and human-in-the-loop feedback to surface when something’s wrong, why, and who needs to act.
 

Core Pillars of Fraud Detection Model Monitoring

 

Your monitoring plan should cover four core pillars—
each with its own goals, failure modes, and monitors.
 
skip to the demo video 
 

jump here↓

Model/System Effectiveness

 

Efficiency degrades slowly. Monitoring across business dimensions helps you catch blind spots early. Mona automates this tracking and isolates where and why degradation happens. 
 
  Goal: Know when your model’s ability to detect fraud is declining—before your business KPIs get hit.

jump here↓

Data Integrity

 

Most data issues aren’t ML problems; they're engineering problems. But they lead to ML failures. Mona lets you trace these infrastructure-oriented issues before the model takes the fall.
 
  Goal: Catch broken pipelines, missing features, and upstream issues before they pollute your model.

jump here↓

Data Representation Quality

 
Data representation drift is a silent killer. Your model may still score transactions, but it’s using assumptions that no longer apply. Mona highlights these mismatches, so you can retrain.
 
  Goal:  Make sure your production data still looks like your training data, so your model doesn’t solve the wrong problem.

jump here↓

Human-in-the-Loop

 

Humans and models learn from each other—when you monitor both. Mona makes human-in-the-loop oversight part of your monitoring plan, not an afterthought.
 
  Goal: Validate that your model decisions align with expert review—and get alerted immediately when they don’t.

 

What to monitor for 

Model/System Efficiency

 

 

 

Precision, recall, F1:

 
 Track across time and segments (e.g., region, device type, transaction channel)

These metrics evaluate the model's ability to correctly identify fraudulent transactions (true positives) while minimizing false positives. Segmenting by factors like geography or transaction type helps identify specific areas where the model may underperform.
 
  VALIDATION, PRODUCTION

AUC-ROC / PR curve:

 
Weekly deltas, especially in minority fraud classes

The Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC) and Precision-Recall (PR) curves provide insights into the model's performance across different thresholds, especially important in imbalanced datasets common in fraud detection.
 
  VALIDATION, PRODUCTION

False positives / negatives:

 
By segment and transaction type
 
Monitoring these helps balance the trade-off between catching fraudulent activities and avoiding unnecessary alerts, which can strain resources and affect customer experience.
 
 
 
 
  PRODUCTION, RETRAINING
Fraud caught over time:
 
Ratio of detected vs missed fraud cases
 
Tracking the ratio of detected to missed fraud cases over time helps assess the model's effectiveness and adapt to evolving fraud patterns.
 
  PRODUCTION, RETRAINING

Lead-lag tests:

 

Is fraud increasing before model adapts?
 
Analyzing the temporal relationship between model predictions and actual fraud occurrences helps mitigate delays in detection.
 
  PRODUCTION, RETRAINING

Model comparison over versions:

  
Did v3 really outperform v2?
 
Comparing performance metrics across different model versions ensures that updates lead to improvements and do not inadvertently degrade performance.
 
  VALIDATION, DEPLOYMENT, PROD

 

What to monitor for 

Data Integrity

 

 

 

Null value ratios:

By feature, source, and environment

High null value ratios can indicate issues in data collection or processing pipelines, leading to unreliable model inputs.
 
 
  TRAINING, VALIDATION, PROD

Out-of-bounds values:

 
Based on training set min/max or schema constraints

Detecting values that fall outside expected ranges helps identify data anomalies or errors that could compromise performance.
 
  TRAINING,  PRODUCTION

Unexpected categorical values:

 
New merchant types? New user agents?

New or unrecognized categories can signal changes in data sources or processes that the model isn't trained to handle.
 
  TRAINING,  PRODUCTION
Transaction volume anomalies:
 
By hour, source, and geography
 
Sudden spikes or drops in transaction volumes may indicate data ingestion issues or external events affecting data patterns.
 
  PRODUCTION

Schema drift across environments:

 

Training vs inference vs staging
 
Changes in data structure between training and production environments can lead to model misbehavior.
 
  DEPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION

Time lag btw ingestion & scoring:

 

Delays can distort model context
 
Delays in data processing can result in outdated information being used for predictions, reducing model effectiveness.
 
  DEPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION

 

What to monitor for 

Data Representation Quality

 

 

 

Feature distribution drift:

 
KS or TV distance for key features

Statistical measures like the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test or Total Variation (TV) distance help detect shifts in feature distributions between training and production data.
 
  TRAINING, VALIDATION, PRODUCTION

Label balance drift:

 
Positive/negative fraud ratio over time

Changes in the proportion of fraud to non-fraud cases can affect model calibration and performance.
 
 
  TRAINING, PRODUCTION

Fraud class distribution:

 
Are you still seeing first-party, third-party, synthetic fraud as expected?

Monitoring the distribution of different fraud types ensures the model remains effective across various fraud scenarios.
 
  TRAINING, PRODUCTION
Transaction volume anomalies:
 
If credit card, ACH, crypto, etc. are modeled differently
 
Variations in transaction types over time can impact model predictions if certain types become more prevalent or are underrepresented.
 
  PRODUCTION

Training set version skew:

 

When retraining, did the label distribution shift?
 
Differences between training datasets used in various model versions can introduce inconsistencies in model behavior
 
 
  DEPLOYMENT, PRODUCTION

 

What to monitor for 

Human-in-the-loop

 

 

 

Human review trigger rate:

 
Track how often the model flags transactions for manual review

A spike in review triggers may signal that the model is encountering novel scenarios or has drifted from its original operating domain.
 
  TRAINING, VALIDATION, PRODUCTION

Manual override frequency:

 
Where human reviewers disagree with model scores

High rates of manual overrides may indicate issues with model predictions, necessitating further investigation.
 
  TRAINING, VALIDATION, PRODUCTION

Analyst agreement rates:

 
Are different reviewers consistently aligned?

Consistency among analysts in reviewing model outputs reflects the clarity and reliability of model predictions.
 
  TRAINING, VALIDATION, PRODUCTION

Jumpstart This Monitoring Plan

 

You don’t have to implement everything at once—but you do need a framework that grows as you scale. 
Here’s how data scientists, MLOps engineers, and other model-centric roles typically get started with Mona:
 

STEP 1: Consider what can go wrong.

 

Use a combination of experience (what went wrong before that you wished you could catch earlier) and theoretical thinking (you built this model, where could there be weak or blind spots?). This doesn’t have to be comprehensive. Start with the obvious, grow with time.
 
STEP 2: Define a monitoring schema.
 
Use this guide to think of all the data you need to track to find issues. Usually, the relevant fields could be picked from the following categories:
 
Model input features and output scores
Technical metadata (model and other component versions, data source ids)
Business metadata (things like customer ids, transaction information, geographical regions)
Feedback and performance metrics

You don’t have to calculate all the derived metrics on your own. A good monitoring platform should be able to do that for you
 

STEP 3: Initiate data logging.

 
If not already implemented, make sure the relevant information from the previous point is tracked in an orderly fashion that will allow you future analysis. Don’t be alarmed if you encounter challenges in gathering everything on day 1. Things like human reviewer / customer feedback, as well as some specific business / technical metadata might be out of reach or logged in different places. Start with the basics and chart a way to get to full schema.
 

STEP 4: Set up your first alerting rules.

 

These will usually be the basic drift, sudden change, and outlier behavior detections for the metrics discussed in this post, along the dimensions you thought of in point 2, relating to technical and business metadata.
 

 Watch a demo | Mona for Fraud Detection Models

 
Mona's AI monitoring system is designed to make this easy. You can configure all of these in the platform, and adapt the plan
as your use cases grow more complex. See how Mona approaches monitoring/observability for fraud detection models below:
 
 

 Build Smarter Fraud Model Monitoring

 
Fraud models evolve fast. Your monitoring needs to move faster. Designing an effective model monitoring strategy isn’t just about tracking the right metrics—it’s about knowing when those metrics matter, why they’ve changed, and who needs to know. That’s where intelligent monitoring makes the difference. A well-structured system doesn’t just surface anomalies; it connects the dots, reduces alert fatigue, and routes the right information to the right teams with context and clarity. Mona’s Model Performance Insights Platform is built for exactly that—helping fraud detection teams move from raw monitoring to meaningful, actionable intelligence. With Mona, you don’t just detect problems—you understand them, prioritize them, and fix them before they impact the business.
 

 

Get started today.

 
Schedule a demo or contact our team to see how Mona helps fraud detection teams
build trust, maintain accuracy, and stay ahead of the threat curve. 

 

Schedule Demo

How Granularity in Model Monitoring Saves Quants from Costly Mistakes

Itai Bar Sinai, Co-founder and CPO

 

Model monitoring at quant funds can feel like a constant fire drill—issues go unnoticed until it’s too late, and small missed tweaks could have made a big impact. The culprit? A lack of granularity. Here’s how deeper monitoring can change that.

 

CONTINUE READING

 

 

The definitive guide to AI / ML monitoring

Itai Bar Sinai, Yotam Oren

 

 

If your machine learning models are running in production but you’re not actively monitoring their impact on business KPIs, you might be missing critical insights—and setting yourself up for costly failures.

 

CONTINUE READING

 

 

Data drift, concept drift, and how to monitor for them

Itai Bar Sinai, Co-founder and CPO

 

 

 

Is data drift a threat to your machine learning models—or just a natural part of running models in production? Understanding the difference could be the key to maintaining reliable performance.

 

CONTINUE READING

 

 

Mona Labs, Inc., Computer Software, Atlanta, GA

© 2025 Mona, All rights reserved  |  Privacy Policy