The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Minority report in fraud detection: classification of skewed data
Abstract
This paper proposes an innovative fraud detection method, built upon existing fraud detection research and Minority Report , to deal with the data mining problem of skewed data distributions. This method uses backpropagation (BP), together with naive Bayesian (NB) and C4.5 algorithms, on data partitions derived from minority oversampling with replacement. Its originality lies in the use of a single meta-classifier (stacking) to choose the best base classifiers, and then combine these base classifiers' predictions (bagging) to improve cost savings (stacking-bagging). Results from a publicly available automobile insurance fraud detection data set demonstrate that stacking-bagging performs slightly better than the best performing bagged algorithm, C4.5, and its best classifier, C4.5 (2), in terms of cost savings. Stacking-bagging also outperforms the common technique used in industry (BP without both sampling and partitioning). Subsequently, this paper compares the new fraud detection method (meta-learning approach) against C4.5 trained using undersampling, oversampling, and SMOTEing without partitioning (sampling approach). Results show that, given a fixed decision threshold and cost matrix, the partitioning and multiple algorithms approach achieves marginally higher cost savings than varying the entire training data set with different class distributions. The most interesting find is confirming that the combination of classifiers to produce the best cost savings has its contributions from all three algorithms.
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
SMOTE synthetic minority over-sampling technique
Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O., & Kegelmeyer, W. P. (2002) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.953 · Cited by 32,865
No free lunch theorems for optimization
Wolpert, D. H., & Macready, W. G. (1997) · IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation · doi:10.1109/4235.585893 · Cited by 14,237
Wolpert, D. H. (1992) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(05)80023-1 · Cited by 7,951
The class imbalance problem: A systematic study1
Japkowicz, N., & Stephen, S. (2002) · Intelligent Data Analysis · doi:10.3233/ida-2002-6504 · Cited by 3,295
Measures of Diversity in Classifier Ensembles and Their Relationship with the Ensemble Accuracy
Kuncheva, L. I., & Whitaker, C. J. (2003) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022859003006 · Cited by 2,335
Robust classification for imprecise environments
Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1007601015854 · Cited by 1,250
Cited by
Chandola, V., Banerjee, A., & Kumar, V. (2009) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1541880.1541882 · Cited by 11,687
He, H., & Garcia, E. A. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.239 · Cited by 10,359
Graph based anomaly detection and description: a survey
Akoglu, L., Tong, H., & Koutra, D. (2015) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-014-0365-y · Cited by 1,504
A Survey of Predictive Modeling on Imbalanced Domains
Branco, P., Torgo, L., & Ribeiro, R. P. (2017) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2907070 · Cited by 1,129
On the Class Imbalance Problem
Guo, X., Yin, Y., Dong, C., Yang, G., & Zhou, G. (2008) · 2008 Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation · doi:10.1109/icnc.2008.871 · Cited by 495
Metadata
- Authors
- Phua, C., Alahakoon, D., & Lee, V.
- Venue
- ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 50-59
- ISSN
- 1931-0145 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-0153
- OpenAlex
- W2040661907
- Cited by
- 450
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 9.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.