The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cost-based modeling for fraud and intrusion detection: results from the JAM project
Open accessAbstract
We describe the results achieved using the JAM distributed data mining system for the real world problem of fraud detection in financial information systems. For this domain we provide clear evidence that state-of-the-art commercial fraud detection systems can be substantially improved in stopping losses due to fraud by combining multiple models of fraudulent transaction shared among banks. We demonstrate that the traditional statistical metrics used to train and evaluate the performance of learning systems (ie. statistical accuracy or ROC analysis) are misleading and perhaps inappropriate for this application. Cost-based metrics are more relevant in certain domains, and defining such metrics poses significant and interesting research questions both in evaluating systems and alternative models, and in formalizing the problems to which one may wish to apply data mining technologies. This paper also demonstrates how the techniques developed for fraud detection can be generalized and applied to the important area of intrusion detection in networked information systems. We report the outcome of recent evaluations of our system applied to tcpdump network intrusion data specifically with respect to statistical accuracy. This work involved building additional components of JAM that we have come to call, MADAM ID (Mining Audit Data for Automated Models for Intrusion Detection). However, taking the next step to define cost-based models for intrusion detection poses interesting new research questions. We describe our initial ideas about how to evaluate intrusion detection systems using cost models learned during our work on fraud detection.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mining association rules between sets of items in large databases
Agrawal, R., Imieliński, T., & Swami, A. (1993) · Proceedings of the 1993 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/170035.170072 · Cited by 14,907
Wolpert, D. H. (1992) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(05)80023-1 · Cited by 7,951
Cited by
A detailed analysis of the KDD CUP 99 data set
Tavallaee, M., Bagheri, E., Lu, W., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2009) · 2009 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence for Security and Defense Applications · doi:10.1109/cisda.2009.5356528 · Cited by 5,396
Anomaly-based network intrusion detection: Techniques, systems and challenges
García-Teodoro, P., Díaz-Verdejo, J., Maciá-Fernández, G., & Vázquez, E. (2009) · Computers & Security · doi:10.1016/j.cose.2008.08.003 · Cited by 2,085
Asharf, J., Moustafa, N., Khurshid, H., Debie, E., Haider, W., & Wahab, A. (2020) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics9071177 · Cited by 378
Casting out Demons: Sanitizing Training Data for Anomaly Sensors
Cretu, G. F., Stavrou, A., Locasto, M. E., Stolfo, S. J., & Keromytis, A. D. (2008) · 2008 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (sp 2008) · doi:10.1109/sp.2008.11 · Cited by 226
Self-citationMarir, N., Wang, H., Feng, G., Li, B., & Jia, M. (2018) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2018.2875045 · Cited by 184
Metadata
- Authors
- Stolfo, S. J., Fan, W., Lee, W., Prodromidis, A., & Chan, P. K.
- Venue
- Proceedings DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. DISCEX'00
- Publisher
- IEEE Comput. Soc
- Published
- 2002-11-07
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 130-144
- OpenAlex
- W2167287136
- Cited by
- 610
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.15
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cost-based modeling for fraud and intrusion detection: results from the JAM project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/discex.2000.821515
- The paper
- Stolfo, S. J., Fan, W., Lee, W., Prodromidis, A., & Chan, P. K. (2002). Cost-based modeling for fraud and intrusion detection: results from the JAM project. Proceedings DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition. DISCEX'00. https://doi.org/10.1109/discex.2000.821515
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.