2010 International Conference on Networking and Information Technology 2010
DOI: 10.1109/icnit.2010.5508478
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improving a credit card fraud detection system using genetic algorithm

Abstract: Işık, Mine (Dogus Author) -- Duman, Ekrem (Dogus Author) -- Conference full title: 2010 International Conference on Networking and Information Technology, ICNIT 2010; Manila; Philippines; 11 June 2010 through 12 June 2010In this study we undertook the credit card fraud detection problem of a bank and tried to improve the performance of an existing solution. In doing so, we did not undertake the typical objective of maximizing the number of correctly classified transactions but rather we defined a new objective… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In [4] many models are implemented for fraud detection. In every model different algorithm are used.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In [4] many models are implemented for fraud detection. In every model different algorithm are used.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This technique is the genetic algorithm. To improve the performance of an existing fraud detection system, researchers (Özçelik, Duman, Işik, & Çevik, 2010) used this algorithm. Researchers (Patel, Singh, & Engineering, 2013) also used this algorithm for the prevention of CCFs.…”
Section: Genetic Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rule-based approach is successful for identifying fraudulent transactions that follow previously observed fraud patterns, but it lacks agility. Before a new rule is added to the existing rule set, a considerable number of fraudulent transactions matching that rule have typically already Gadi, Wang, & Lago, 2008aGadi, Wang, & Lago, 2008bPatil, Karad, Wadhai, Gokhale, & Halgaonkar, 2010Sherly & Nedunchezhian, 2010Bhattacharyya et al, 2011Sahin & Duman, 2011aAlowais & Soon, 2012 Neural networks (NN) Maes, Tuyls, Vanschoenwinkel, & Manderick, 1993Aleskerov, Freisleben, & Rao, 1997Gadi et al, 2008aGadi et al, 2008bSahin & Duman, 2011b Bayesian networks (BN) Maes et al, 1993Filippov, Mukhanov, & Shchukin, 2008Gadi et al, 2008aGadi et al, 2008b Naïve Bayes (NB) Filippov et al, 2008Gadi et al, 2008aGadi et al, 2008bAlowais & Soon, 2012 Support vector machines (SVM) Chen, Chen, Chien, & Yang, 2005Bhattacharyya et al, 2011Sahin & Duman, 2011aHejazi & Singh, 2012 Genetic algorithm (GA) Ma & Li, 2009Ozcelik, Isik, Duman, & Cevik, 2010Duman & Ozcelik, 2011 Artificial immune system (AIS) Gadi et al, 2008aGadi et al, 2008b Hidden Markov model (HMM) Bhusari & Patil, 2011Rani, Kumar, Mohan, & Shankar, 2011 occurred. A long delay is required before a rule can be added, during which time fraud strategies may change, making the rule obsolete (Krivko, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%