See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339019564

Comparative Evaluation of Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Machine

Learning Techniques

Conference Paper · October 2019

DOI: 10.1109/GCAT47503.2019.8978372

CITATIONS READS

13 178

4 authors, including:

Olawale Adepoju Julius Wosowei

Jain University Niger Delta University
3 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hemant Jaiman
Rajasthan Technical University
1 PUBLICATION   13 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Developing a prediction and classification model for loan risk using machine learning View project

An Enhanced Integrated Digital Design of an Oilfield View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Julius Wosowei on 02 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

2019 Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT)
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CREDIT
CARD FRAUD DETECTION USING MACHINE
LEARNING TECHNIQUES
Olawale Adepoju Julius Wosowei
Research Scholar, Department Research Scholar, Department
of Data Science of Computer Engineering
School of Engineering and School of Engineering and
Technology, Jain University Technology, Jain University
Bangalore, India Bangalore, India
olawale_adepoju@yahoo.com julius.wosowei@gmail.com
Abstract—Credit card fraud is a serious and growing problem
with the increase in e-commerce and online transactions in this
modern era. With this identity theft and loss of money, such
mischievous practices can affect millions of people around the
world. Criminal activity is a rising threat to the financial sector
with-reaching implications.
Information extraction seemed to have assumed a basic job in
recognition of online payment fraud, fraud detection efficiency
in credit card purchases is significantly affected by the data set
measuring strategy, the choice of variable and the detection
techniques used.
This publication inspects execution of, Support Vector Machine,
Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression and K-Nearest Neighbor on
exceptionally distorted data on credit card fraud.
The execution of these techniques is assessed dependent on
accuracy, sensitivity, precision, specificity. The outcomes show
an ideal accuracy for logistic regression, Naive Bayes, k-nearest
neighbor and Support vector machine classifiers are 99.07%,
95.98%, 96.91%, and 97.53% respectively. The relative
outcomes demonstrate that logistic regression performs
superior to other algorithms.
Keywords— Credit card fraud, Data Mining, Machine Learning,
Naive Bayes, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, K-
Nearest Neighbor
I. INTRODUCTION
Financial fraud is a consistently developing threat with
sweeping outcomes in the sectors of financial services,
business and government organizations. Scam is termed as
illegal deceit with the intention of obtaining monetary profit.
Monetary fraud is a growing threat to business, corporate
affiliations as well as government with extensive outcome.
Extortion can be portrayed as criminal dubiousness or
trickery with the objective of getting financial benefit.
Significantly increased credit card transactions have enjoyed
high reliance on internet innovation. As card transactions
becomes the predominant form of exchange for physical and
digital operations, the rate of fraudulent activity credit card
fraud rate additionally increases rapidly.
Scam on cards may be an internal or exterior scam.
Internal card misrepresentation happens because of assent
among cardholder with the financial institutions, using a fake
character to cheat the system whereas the exterior scam
978-1-7281-3694-3/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
Shiwani lawte Hemaint Jaiman
Research Scholar, Department Research Scholar, Department
of Data Science of Data Science
School of Engineering and School of Engineering and
Technology, Jain University Technology, Jain University
Bangalore, India Bangalore, India
shiwanilawte88@gmail.com hemantjaiman10@gmail.com
includes the utilization of the credit or debit card to obtain
money by questionable or fraudulent methods. A good deal
of research has focused on identifying external card fraud
which often accounts for many of these credit card fraud.
It is possible to classify external credit card fraud into two
different types, card-not-present fraud and card-present
fraud. Card-not-present fraud happens when a client's card
details including card number, termination date, and card
verification code (CVC) are undermined and afterward
utilized without physically exhibiting a credit card to a seller,
for example, in online transactions. Card-present fraud
happens when credit card data is stolen legitimately from a
physical credit card [1]. Distinguishing false transactions
utilizing traditional techniques for manual recognition of
fraud is tedious and uneconomical, rendering manual
methods more unfeasible due to the introduction of big data.
In any case, financial organizations have centered
consideration regarding later computational strategies to deal
with credit card fraud.
Information mining technique is one of the outstanding
and famous techniques utilized in taking care of identification
of fraud, the true motive and legitimacy behind any
transaction cannot be absolutely certain. In fact, the best
effective option is to search for possible evidence of fraud
from available data using statistical algorithms. Identification
of card fraud is the conceptual model for recognizing
fraudulent activity into sub classes of authentic class and not-
genuine class [2].
Detection of credit card fraud is based on analyzing the spen
ding behavior of a card. Numerous methods have been
connected to card fraud recognition using a support vector
machine [3], genetic algorithm [4], decision tree [5], artificial
neural network [6] and naïve bayes [7].
Credit card companies are actually attempting to predict a
purchase’s authenticity by evaluating discrepancies in
various areas such as purchasing location, transaction amount
and user purchase history. Nevertheless, with a current rise in
credit card fraud cases, optimizing algorithm solutions is
crucial for credit card companies [8].
Credit card detection is aligned with a number of
challenges, firstly fraudulent behavior patterns which are
dynamic, which means falsified operations will, in general,
2019 Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT)
look like authentic ones, besides, card transactions
informational collections are once in a while accessible and
exceptionally imbalanced, thirdly the efficiency of the
identification of fraud on credit card is incredibly influenced
by the type of testing approach, variable choice, and
identification techniques utilized.
Last but not least, the data constantly changes over time
and alters, rendering the status of regular and fraud behaviors
that were the genuine operations in the past to be always
different and might be the present fraud or vice versa.
This paper aims to conduct comparative analyses of identific
ation of fraudulent activity on credit card utilizing support
vector machine, k-nearest neigbour technique, naïve bayes
and logistic regression techniques using biased information,
depending on the reliability to explore the most accurate
method of classifying a credit card transaction as fraudulent
or non-fraudulent by which some algorithm and combination
of factors are considered.
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Fraud detection is traditionally seen as a problem of data
mining classification, with the aim of correctly classifying
credit card transactions as legitimate or fraudulent [9].
Categorizing of card operations is primarily a concern of
Boolean categorization. Credit card transactions in this
regard are either legit transactions or a fraudulent transaction.
A. Data Mining
Data Mining is the process of identifying valuable trends
and patterns from large datasets [10], combining different
fields of study such as machine learning, informatics and
statistics. It requires the ability to analyze and manipulate
data [11].
Classification is a function of data mining which assigns
items to target categories or classes in a collection. The
classification objective is to predict the target class accurately
in the data for each case. A classification job begins with a
dataset that knows the class assignments that serve as target
predictors.
The least complex sort of classification problem is binary
classification. In binary classification, the target attribute has
just two conceivable values, for example, high risk or on the
other hand generally safe for fraud. Therefore, the most
appropriate algorithm for detection of credit card fraud is the
binary classifiers.
B. Scam on Credit Card
Fraud on cards can be apportioned into two sorts: internal
theft for card identity, and exterior [12, 13] whereas a more
extensive groupings has also been performed into more
classes, i.e Customary card associated cheats
(implementation, theft, login acquisition, phony as well as
fake), vendor-related fraud (connivance and triangular) as
well as cyber fraud (cloning of website, generators of
payment cards and fake vendor) [14]. The aggregated sum of
losses in scam transaction involving financial institution and
organization across the world is accounted for in [15]. The
report concluded that, with an increase of about $2.6billion in
the earlier year’s reported losses, it exceeded more than $16
978-1-7281-3694-3/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
billion in 2015, implying that every $100 is having 6.1 cents
which were fraud.
C. Machine Learning
Machine Learning is a kind of Artificial Intelligence in
which computers are trained to identify designs inside
expansive informational indexes or datasets and enhance
those examples naturally without the requirement for human
intercession. The training procedure includes beginning with
a basic machine-learning algorithm that forms training data
to dissect the relationship of different components with an
objective esteem. The target value is unequivocally given to
the machine learning algorithm in the training stage. When
trained, the model would then be able to be utilized to
anticipate for other data instances to forecast unknown target
values.
Depending on whether the training data provided are
labeled, machine learning can be classified as supervised or
unsupervised. Supervised learning focuses on finding a
relationship between an input value and an output value to
predict additional output values when there is more input.
It is possible to further group a supervised learning problem
into either classification or regression [16]. Classification
issues categorize output (such as fraud and non-fraud) while
regression issues output as a specific value (such as height).
Machine learning algorithms that do not produce an output,
but rather analyze the input-output relationship are referred
to as unsupervised because the training data are neither
labeled nor classified [17].
This project actualizes supervised machine algorithm for
arrangement of credit card fraud as either fraudulent or non-
fraudulent [18].
D. Fraud on Credit Card Detection
With card payment turning into the broadest method of
payments both over the internet and in person, the credit card
fraud tends to accelerate quickly. Distinguishing fraudulent
transaction utilizing conventional methods for manual
identification are tedious and inaccurate, in this manner the
growth of large information has rendered conventional
method strategies increasingly unrealistic. Corporate
organizations have switched to smart methods, however with
smart methods based on artificial learning.
Methods for detecting predictive fraud were divided into tw
o broad categories: supervised and unsupervised [19]. Design
are projected based on features of deceptive and legit
operations in supervised fraud detection methods [20] to
classify new transactions as fraudulent or legitimate while
outliers’ transactions are detected as potential instances of
fraudulent transactions in unsupervised fraud detection. A
point by point dialog of supervised technique and
unsupervised machine technique can be discovered in [21].
Variety of research have been conducted on various method
to solve the problem of detection card scam. These methods
are not restricted to but includes: Artificial Neural Network
model, Bayesian model, Logistic regression, Support vector
machine, Decision tree, K-nearest neighbor etc.
2019 Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT)
E. Feature Selection
Major foundation for detecting frauds on credit card is to
analyze its cardholder’s spending behavior. This expenditure
behavior is assessed utilizing suitable features determination
that gather a credit card unique behavior, a real and fake
transaction profile will in general change. These features are
gotten from a blend of past transaction history. All features
are categorized within basic fundamental input which
include: operation data, geographic data, merchant type data,
time-based data on quantities and transaction period data
[22].
The variables falling under the statistics type of all transacti
ons depict an overall card utilization pattern, all variable
under the type of geographical data demonstrate the card’s
expenditure habit taking geographical regions into account,
and the variables demonstrate the use of the card in separate
merchant classes under a type of merchant data, time-based
data variables defines the utilization history of the cards with
respect to the quantity of use compared to moment periods.
Generally some of the papers concentrated on the owner of
the card’s data as opposed to card details. It’s also evident for
an individual to have at least two payment cards for
distinctive reasons. Thus, distinct expenditure habits can be
displayed on these cards. The core is harnessed towards the
card throughout this examination, as opposed to the bearer of
the card since either of the cards can display an interesting
expenditure habit whereas a card owner will show numerous
practices on various credit cards. An aggregate of 30 factors
is been utilized at [23], 25 factors at [22] and 21 factors is
been diminished to 16 pertinent variables [9].
III. EXPERIMENTAL METHODOLOGY
This section explains the procedure and methods used in
the experiment the dataset used to train the model and the four
techniques used in the study for machine learning; Support
Vector Machine, Naïve Bayes, K-Nearest Neighbor and
Logistic Regression techniques. The different phases engaged
in the experiment are information gathering, information
processing, information assessment, classifier algorithm, and
the evaluation stage which involved splitting the data into train
set and test set.
The learning phase is where the classifier’s system are
created and supplied with the extracted information, the test is
evaluated utilizing confusion matrix measurement rates.
A. Dataset
Dataset emerges from Kaggle Machine Learning platform
[24]. This dataset presents 3075 transactions with 12 features
of transactions in CSV file. Due to confidentiality issues, the
features details and background information cannot be
presented. The features contains the average amount of
transaction per day, transaction amount, if declined or not,
foreign transaction or not, if it’s of high risk, and six month
average balance in the dataset. The ‘is fraudulent’ feature is
perhaps the label for the Boolean evaluation and it contains
precedence Y in case of illegal operations (fraud) and N for
legal operations (not fraud).
978-1-7281-3694-3/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
B. Data Preprocessing
Data preprocessing is carried out on the data, most of the
feature column are categorical data, so conversion into
integers were necessary. Where the class of the feature is ‘Y’,
we convert to binary 1 and where feature class is ‘N’ we
convert to 0. 80% of the dataset to be used as the train set and
20% as the test set.
Because of the high non - fraudulent to fraudulent ratio sho
wn in the dataset predictions from the initial training set, wh
ich is not uniformly assigned, we take the range of fraudulent
class for training data from 1 to 400 and fraudulent for testing
data from 401 to 450. For not fraudulent class we take
training data from 451 to 2800 and for testing data 2801 to
3075.
r=[]
for i in range(401,450):
r.append(i)
train_x = x.iloc[:2800,:]
train_x = train_x.drop(r)
train_x = train_x.as_matrix()
train_y = y.iloc[:2800,]
train_y = train_y.drop(r)
train_y = train_y.as_matrix()
df1 = x.iloc[r]
df2 = x.iloc[2800:,:]
test_x = pd.concat([df1,df2])
df3 = y.iloc[r]
df4 = y.iloc[2800:,:]
test_y = pd.concat([df3,df4])
List 1. Code snippet for Data Preprocessing
C. Logistic Regression:
The logistic regression algorithm uses both the logistic
regression function and the sigmoid function to carry out
binary classification based on the various factors within the
dataset. The sigmoid function is shown below:
1
yi = 1+e−(z) (1)
The Sigmoid function is used to find a binary classification
probability. In this equation, y is the probability of the outpu
t, and z is the log - odds of the example.
z = b + m1 x1 + m2x2 + m3x3 + ............ mnxn (2)
Where b is the linear regression intercept, m is the weighted
values and bias and x is the values featured. The likelihood
of a certain outcome is predicted by the sigmoid function.
2019 Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT)
Figure 1. Graph of Logistic regression sigmoid function
Logistic regression is used in binary classification of either 1
or 0, there is a threshold of 0.5, and any value higher than this
threshold is considered 1 and any value lesser than threshold
of 0.5 is automatically considered 0.
D. K-Nearest Neighbor (KNN):
K-nearest neighbor algorithm is a classification
algorithm that predicts the attributes of an informational
point to other points based on its relative position. Its
classification is based on similarity measures such as
Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance measure. It is
assumed that the data point in the training set that has the
shortest Euclidean distance to the test point has the same
unknown attribute as the test point. The Euclidean distance
measure for the KNN classifier is used in this study. The
range between Euclidean (EC)’s two point vectors (x1, x2)
is determined by:
EC = √ ∑ (𝑥1 − 𝑥2 )2 k=1, 2,…..,n
Manhattan distance measure between two points (xi, yi) and
(xn, yn) is a metric in which the distance between two points is
the absolute difference of their Cartesian coordinate.
M = (𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥𝑛 ) + (𝑦𝑖 − 𝑦𝑛) (4)
E. Naïve Bayes:
Naïve Bayes classifier is based on Bayes theorem that
selects the highest probability based decision. Bayesian
probability estimates from known values and known
probabilities.
It is a supervised machine learning algorithm which is
represented by
𝑃(𝐵|𝐴). 𝑃(𝐴)
P (A|B) = (5)
𝑃(𝐵)
Bayes theorem provides a method of calculating the posterior
likelihood P (A|B), the likelihood of outcome (A) provided
certain conditions (B).
The theorem calculates the later probability by using a
probability ratio P (B|A) = P (B) to relate it to the previous
probability of the result without any knowledge of influential
conditions.
The theorem of the naïve bayes is based on the assumption
that each factor affects the outcome independently and is
978-1-7281-3694-3/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
therefore naïve. The naïve bayes classifier is also a way to
classify fraudulent credit card transaction.
F. Support Vector Machine
Support vector machine are examples of supervised
algorithms for supervised learning that can be applied to
classification and regression issues. A support vector
machine will decide the best fitting technique for classifying
the information.
A support machine (SVM) is formally defined by a separate
hyper-plane as a discriminatory classifier. In other words,
given the labeled training an optimal hyper-plane is produced
by the algorithm that categorizes new examples. This hyper-
plane is a line dividing a plane into two parts in two-
dimensional spaces where it lay on either side in each class.
Data points to the right of the hyper-planes are classified as
non-fraudulent, while others are classified as fraudulent. Both
hyper-plane in the figure above correctly separate the data
points by fraud, but the most effective hyper-plane will
achieve a similar level of accuracy when unknown data points
need to be classified.
This selects the optimal hyper-plane based on the line
distance as in figure 2. Support vector machine separate the
class to either sides nearest point. This distance is called the
margin, and the margin point is known as support vectors.
(3)
Figure 2. Support Vector Machine
IV. EVALUATION AND RESULT
To evaluate this machine learning models we considered
two different method namely;
(1) Classification accuracy, which is the ratio of number
of correct prediction to the number of input sample,
as seen in equation 6. But this is very effective only if
there are equal number of samples in each class.
number of correct prediction
Accuracy = total number of predicted made (6)
(2) Confusion Matrix: this gives a matrix as output and
describe the complete performance of the model. Four
essential measurements are utilized in evaluating the
analyses, to be specific True Positive Ratio (TPR),
True Negative Ratio (TNR), False Positive Ratio
(FPR) and False Negative Ratio (FNR) rates metric
individually.
In which true positive, true negative, false positive and
false negative are the quantity characterized by true positive,
false positive, true negative, and false negative experiments,
2019 Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT)
thus p and n are the absolute values of positive and negative Accuracy 97.53 96.91 95.99 99.074
class cases being tested.
Sensitivity 97.56 89.36 0 1
True positives are classes predicted to be positive and are Specificity 97.53 98.19 1 98.92
actually, true negative classes are predicted as negative but are
Precision 85.1 89.36 1 93.61
actually negative. False positive are classes predicted to be
positive and are actually negative, false negatives are classes
predicted to be negative but that are actually positive. Table 2. Comparison Table for the four classifiers

Based on accuracy, sensitivity (recall), specificity, precision, Table 2 above shows the efficiency assessment of the four
performance of support vector machine, naïve bayes, k- models for information allocation. The stronger efficiency
nearest neighbor and logistic regression classifier is evaluated. was shown by this information allocation. The method of
Actual no of sample Predicted No Predicted Yes logistic regression showed the greatest accuracy of results
across the assessment metrics used.
Actual No True Negative False positive
V. CONCLUSION

Actual Yes False Negative True Positive Four classifiers models are being developed in this study
based on Support Vector Machine, Naïve Bayes, K-Nearest
Neighbor, and Logistic Regression. 80% of the dataset is used
Table 1. Confusion Matrix Table for validation and testing.
Precision, Sensitive, Specificity, Accuracy are used to assess
Accuracy is the ratio of the sum of true positive and true performance. However, an unrealistic expectation is the
negative to the sum of all the predicted samples as seen in presence of a balanced training and testing dataset of the same
equation 7. distribution.
TP+TN
According to Table 2, when tested under a realistic
Accuracy = TP+TN+FP+FN (7) conditions, Logistic Regression was the most accurate in
detecting credit card fraud.
Sensitivity which is also called recall is the measure of the Based on this exploration, a credit card organization ought
ratio of true positive predictions to the sum of true positive and to consider executing a Logistic Regression algorithm that
false negative. The recall evaluate the completeness of the investigates the buy time to distinguish whether a credit card
program, examining how many true positives were detected transaction is fraud.
as positive.as seen in equation 8.
TP
Sensitivity (recall) = TP+FN (8) A. FUTURE WORKS
This exploration on distinguishing charge card extortion
Specificity is the measure of the ration of true negative to the has extraordinary potential for future ramifications. In the
sum of true negative and false positive event that a dataset with decoded fields were discharged to
people in general, the genuine components which can be
TN followed for charge card extortion identification can know.
Specificity = TN+FP (9) Besides, the aftereffects of this project were restricted by the
small data size of fraudulent cases given by the dataset.
Precision is the ratio of the number of true positives to the
By utilizing a bigger dataset with a more noteworthy
sum of true positive and false positive. It can be said to be the
number of fraudulent cases, the calculations can be prepared
measure of the quality of the positive feedback data. The to make expectations of more noteworthy exactness. To seek
equation for precision can be seen in Equation 10. after these objectives, all the more processing power might be
TP
required. Different strategies for bias avoidance, for example,
Precision= (10) other re sampling strategies, cost-sensitive learning methods,
TP+FP
and ensemble learning techniques could likewise be tried in
Four algorithm systems are developed in this research that future datasets to find the best strategy for managing a skewed
is based on logistic regression, svm, naive bayes, and k- dataset.
closest neighbor. 80% of that same sample is utilized for
preparation to evaluate the design whereas 20% was set aside
for experimentation. To evaluate the implementation of the ACKNOWLEDGMENT
classifiers, specificity, precision, accuracy, and sensitivity are The authors of this paper thankfully recognize project
used. mentor Bokefode Jayant for his knowledgeable impact in
machine learning and data science and also research
Classifiers (%) coordinator Yogesh Kakde for his assistance and for his
Metrics Support K-nearest Naïve Logistics valuable assistance.
Vector Neighbor Bayes Regression
Machine REFERENCES

978-1-7281-3694-3/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE

2019 Global Conference for Advancement in Technology (GCAT)
[1] R. Harrow, Is Your Credit Card Less Secure Than Ever Before? Forbes,
20-Apr-2018. [Online].
[2] Maes, S., Tuyls, K., Vanschoenwinkel, B. and Manderick, B., (2002).
Credit card fraud detection using Bayesian and neural networks.
Proceeding International NAISO Congress on Neuro Fuzzy
Technologies.
[3] Singh, G., Gupta, R., Rastogi, A., Chandel, M. D. S., and Riyaz, A.,
(2012). A Machine Learning Approach for Detection of Fraud based
on SVM, International Journal of Scientific Engineering and
Technology, Volume No.1, Issue No.3, pp. 194-198, ISSN: 2277-1581
[4] RamaKalyani, K. and UmaDevi, D., (2012). Fraud Detection of Credit
Card Payment System by Genetic Algorithm, International Journal of
Scientific & Engineering Research, Vol. 3, Issue 7, pp. 1 – 6, ISSN
2229-5518
[5] Patil, S., Somavanshi, H., Gaikwad, J., Deshmane, A., and Badgujar,
R., (2015). Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Decision Tree Induction
Algorithm, International Journal of Computer Science and Mobile
Computing (IJCSMC), Vol.4, Issue 4, pp. 92-95, ISSN: 2320-088X
[6] Ogwueleka, F. N., (2011). Data Mining Application in Credit Card
Fraud Detection System, Journal of Engineering Science and
Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 311 – 322
[7] Bahnsen, A. C., Stojanovic, A., Aouada, D., & Ottersten, B. (2014).
Improving credit card fraud detection with calibrated probabilities. In
Proceedings of the 2014 SIAM International Conference on Data
Mining (pp. 677-685).
[8] J. Steele and J. Gonzalez, Credit card fraud and ID theft statistics,
CreditCards.com. [Online].
[9] Seeja, K. R., and Zareapoor, M., (2014). FraudMiner: A Novel Credit
Card Fraud Detection Model Based on Frequent Itemset Mining, The
Scientific World Journal, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Volume
2014, Article ID 252797, pp. 1 – 10.
[10] Data Analytics vs Data Science: Two Separate, but Interconnected
Disciplines, Data Scientist Insights, 28-Apr-2018. [Online].
[11] D. T. Larose and C. D. Larose, Discovering knowledge in data: an
introduction to data mining. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
978-1-7281-3694-3/$31.00 ©2019 IEEE
View publication stats
[12] Shen, A., Tong, R., & Deng, Y. (2007). Application of classification
models on credit card fraud detection. In Service Systems and Service
Management, 2007 International Conference on (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
[13] Chaudhary, K. and Mallick, B., (2012). Credit Card Fraud: The study
of its impact and detection techniques, International Journal of
Computer Science and Network (IJCSN), Volume 1, Issue 4, pp. 31 –
35, ISSN: 2277-5420
[14] Bhatla, T.P.; Prabhu, V.; and Dua, A. (2003). Understanding credit
card frauds. Crads Business Review# 2003-1, Tata Consultancy
Services
[15] The Nilson Report. (2015). U.S. Credit & Debit Cards 2015. David
Robertson.
[16] Supervised and Unsupervised Machine Learning Algorithms, Machine
Learning Mastery, 22-Sep-2016. [Online].
[17] What is Machine Learning? A definition, Expert System, 05-Oct-2017.
[Online].
[18] C. Donalek, Supervised and Unsupervised Learning.
[19] Bolton, R. J. and Hand, D. J., (2001). Unsupervised profiling methods
for fraud detection, Conference on Credit Scoring and Credit Control,
Edinburgh.
[20] Bhattacharyya, S., Jha, S., Tharakunnel, K., & Westland, J. C. (2011).
Data mining for credit card fraud: A comparative study. Decision
Support Systems, 50(3), 602-613.
[21] Kou, Y., Lu, C-T., Sinvongwattana, S. and Huang, Y-P., (2004).
Survey of Fraud Detection Techniques, In Proceedings of the 2004
IEEE International Conference on Networking, Sensing & Control,
Taipei, Taiwan, March 21-23.
[22] Bahnsen, A. C., Stojanovic, A., Aouada, D., & Ottersten, B. (2013).
Cost sensitive credit card fraud detection using Bayes minimum risk.
In Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA), 2013 12th
International Conference on (Vol. 1, pp. 333-338). IEEE.
[23] Stolfo, S., Fan, D. W., Lee, W., Prodromidis, A., & Chan, P. (1997).
Credit card fraud detection using meta-learning: Issues and initial
results. In AAAI-97 Workshop on Fraud Detection and Risk
Management.