2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)
Application of GA Feature Selection on Naïve
Bayes, Random Forest and SVM for Credit
Card Fraud Detection
Yakub K. Saheed Moshood A. Hambali
Dept. of Computer Dept. of Computer
2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA) | 978-1-7281-9677-0/20/$31.00 ©2020 IEEE | DOI: 10.1109/DASA51403.2020.9317228
Science, Science,
Al-Hikmah University, Federal University
Ilorin, Wukari,
Ilorin, Nigeria. Wukari, Nigeria.
yksaheed@alhikmah.edu.ng hambali@fuwukari.edu.ng
Abstract - Credit Card Fraud (CCF) is a serious challenge
facing credit card holder and the credit card delivering
companies in the past decades. There are two levels CCF are
performed, the transaction level frauds and application level
frauds. This paper focuses on the application level of CCF
detection using Genetic Algorithm (GA) as a feature selection
technique. The GA feature selection technique is in two
phases, the first phase is designated as the first priority
features where eight (8) attributes were selected as the fittest
attributes. At second stage which is referred to as the second
priority features where another set of eight (8) attributes were
considered and selected. The Naïve Bayes (NB), Random
Forest (RF) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) supervised
machine learning techniques were used for the detection of
CCF on German credit card dataset which is an imbalance
dataset. The experimental findings of the proposed model
revealed that the first priority features are the most important
features. Also, the obtained results showed that the RF
algorithm outperformed NB and SVM in terms of accuracy,
fraud detection rate and precision.
Keyword: Credit card, Imbalance dataset, Genetic algorithm,
Fraud Detection, NB, SVM, Random forest
I - INTRODUCTION
Banking and finance are vital sector in our day to day
activities, it is inevitable for a day to pass without dealing with
bank either through online platform or physical transaction [1].
The efficiency and viability of both private and public sector has
extremely raises because of the banking information system.
Credit cards are extensively employed as a medium of payments
due to the general acceptability of e-commerce, internet
technology, online banking and advancement in mobile intelligent
devices, most especially online transactions operations that are
done through web payment gateways, such as Alipay, PayPal and
others. As the rises in credit card transactions as the most
dominant medium of payment for both online and offline
transaction, credit card fraud (CCF) rate are also increasing at very
alarming rate[2], [3].
Financial fraud has posed serious menace that are far reaching
consequences to the individuals, corporate organizations,
government and finance industry. Fraud is an unlawful or criminal
deception with the aim of attain financial gain or personal gain[4].
978-1-7281-9677-0/20/$31.00
Authorized licensed use limited to: ©2020 IEEE
Carleton University.
Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Micheal O. Arowolo Yinusa A. Olasupo
Dept. of Computer Dept. of Computer
Science, Science,
Landmark University, Federal University
Omu-Aran, Nigeria. Wukari,
arowolo.olaolu@lmu.edu.ng Wukari, Nigeria.
yinusa@fuwukari.edu.ng
CCF is concerned with the illegitimate use of credit card data for
transactions. Transaction with credit card can be performed either
digitally or physically[5]. In physical transactions, transaction is
perform with credit card either through physical contact or scan
with a device, while in digital transactions, cardholders usually
supply the card number, expiry date, and card verification number
through phone or online. Even with the several authorization
techniques put in place, CCF have not be able to stall efficiently.
To prevent loss from fraudsters, two mechanisms are commonly
employed: fraud detection and fraud prevention. Fraud detection
is a technique of monitoring the cardholders’ transaction activities
with the intent of detecting whether an incoming dealing is coming
from the cardholder or fraudsters[6]. While fraud prevention is a
defensive technique, where fraud transaction is halt from taking
place in the first instance. Generally, fraud detection are of two
types: anomaly detection and misuse detection. Misuse detection
employs classification techniques to determine an incoming
transaction whether is a fraud or not. Typically, this type of
approach has a model to learn about the various existing fraud
patterns. While anomaly detection develops an historical
transaction model for the behavioral profile of normal transaction
of a cardholder, and decide whether an incoming transaction is a
potential fraud, once it is deviate from the usual transaction
pattern. Though, an anomaly detection technique requires
sufficient successive training data that will model the normal
transaction pattern of a cardholder [7].
Fraud transactions detection using traditional approaches of
manual detection consume lot of time and inefficient, hence with
the invention of big data, manual procedures has become more
impracticable. Nevertheless, financial organizations have recently
motivated toward computational approaches for control and
prevention of CCF challenges. Also, with the increase in users
number and online transactions serious workloads has been
brought to these systems [8].
Data mining approach is one of the outstanding techniques
employed in preventing and detecting CCF problem[9].
According to [10] CCF detection is the technique of classifying
the transactions into two classes of genuine and fraudulent
transactions. Fraud detection on credit card is modeled on the
analysis of a card’s spending pattern. Lot of techniques have been
employed for credit card fraudulent detection, among them are
artificial neural network[11], decision tree[12], frequent itemset
mining[13], genetic algorithm (GA)[11],[12], migrating birds
1091
 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)
optimization algorithm [16], Naïve Bayes (NB)[17] and support
vector machine (SVM)[18]. Logistic regression and NB
comparative analysis was done by [19]. Bayesian and neural
network performance was evaluated on CFF data in [20], while
[21] tested for capability of decision tree, neural networks and
logistic regression in fraud detections. Ref.[22] appraised random
forests and SVM combined with logistic regression, with the effort
of attaining a better detection of CCF. There are number of hitches
that are related to credit card detection, among them are:
dynamism in fraudulent behavior pattern, that is, sometimes
fraudulent transactions seem like legitimate ones; availability of
credit card transaction datasets and highly imbalanced in nature;
optimal feature selection for the models; appropriate performance
evaluation metric to be used on skewed CCF data [10]. Also,
nature of sampling approach also has great effect on CCF
detection performance, selection of features and detection
technique(s) employed. The objective of this work is to examine
the effect of GA feature selection priority on selected variables of
highly skewed CCF data using NB, Random Forest (RF) and SVM
as classifiers to evaluate the approach.
II. RELATED STUDY
Credit card transactions are usually regard as a binary
classification problem. The credit card transaction is either
categorize as a genuine transaction (negative class) or a fraudulent
transaction (positive class).
A. Feature selection
Analysis of cardholder’s spending profile is the main
backbone of CCF detection. This spending behavior is analyzed
by selecting optimal features that capture the uniqueness of a
credit card profile. The transactions profile (both legitimate and
fraudulent) tend to be dynamically changing. Hence, optimal
feature selection approach that are greatly differentiates between
both profiles is required to accomplish efficient credit card
transaction classification. The selected features that represent the
card usage profiles and algorithms used, determine the CCF
detection systems’ performance. These features are derivative of
both transactions (legitimate and fraudulent) and historical
transaction of a credit card. These features can be grouped into
five major types, namely all transactions statistics, merchant type
statistics, regional statistics, time-based amount statistics and
time-based number of transactions statistics [10], [23].
The features that represent the general profile of card usage
are referred to as all transactions statistics type. The features that
taken into account, the spending profiles of the card in relation to
the geographical regions are known as regional statistics type.
Merchant statistics type are refer to the features that demonstrate
the card usage with different merchant types. Time-based statistics
types are the features that identify the profile of the card usage
with respect to the amounts against time ranges or usage
frequencies against time ranges. Cardholder profile is the major
focus of most of the literature rather than card profile. It is obvious
that an individual can use multiple credit cards for several
purposes. Thus, one can exhibit variant pattern of spending
behavior on such cards. In this study, we focus more on card
profile rather than cardholder alone since a single credit card can
only exhibit a distinct spending profile while a cardholder can
exhibit various behavior pattern on different cards. Ref.[24] used
a total of 30 features in their study, 27 features was used in [23]
1092
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
while [13] used 16 relevant features out of 20 variables in their
study.
B. Credit Card Fraud
Existing CCFs can be grouped into two types: external fraud
and inner card fraud [7],[18] while a more wider classification
have been presented by [10] to be three categories, namely, card
related frauds (application, account takeover, fake, counterfeit,
identity thief and stolen,), Internet frauds (credit card generators,
site cloning and fake sites) and merchant related frauds (merchant
conspiracy and triangulation) [10]. It was reported in [25] that
amount lost due to CCF every year worth $500 million US dollars.
There are unusual prodigy that are mainly characterize credit
card transactions data. Both genuine and illicit transactions ones
tend to share similar profile. Fraudsters innovate a new tricks to
mimic the genuine (legitimate) cardholder spending pattern.
Hence, the profiles of legitimate and fraudulent activities are
continuously dynamic. This nature of characteristic tends toward
reduction in the actual figure of true fraudulent cases classified in
a pool of credit card transactions data moving toward a highly
skewed distribution of negative class (legitimate transactions).
The credit card data investigated by [23] contains 0.025% positive
cases while in [16] it is below 0.005% positive cases.
Ref.[10] examined the performance of NB, k-nearest neighbor
(KNN) and logistic regression on fraud detection of highly skewed
credit card data. European cardholders’ dataset that containing
284,807 transactions was used for the experiments. They
employed hybrid technique of under-sampling and oversampling
to pre-process the skewed data. Their results showed that KNN
performs better than other approaches, the accuracy obtained for
NB, KNN and logistic regression classifiers are 97.92%, 97.69%
and 54.86% respectively.
Ref.[26] proposed Enhanced LINGO clustering algorithm for
Fraud Miner. This improvement involving the replacement of
Apriori algorithm employed in Fraud Miner with Frequently
Pattern creation in LINGO clustering algorithm, and summarize
customer’s profile either within his genuine or fraud transactions.
The results of their simulated test transactions showed that LINGO
produced significant summarized patterns better than the outcome
of Apriori Algorithm.
Ref.[27] employed hybrid techniques of AdaBoost and
majority voting approaches to evaluate the efficacy of the model.
Publicly available credit card dataset in addition to a real-world
credit card dataset obtained from a financial institution was
analyzed. The best MCCscore of 0.823 was achieved in majority
voting approach.
Ref.[7] examined the performance of two types of random
forest models on a real-life B2C credit card dataset transactions.
The models are Random-tree-based random forest (I) and CART-
based random forest (II). Their results showed that Random Forest
I yielded 91.96% accuracy while Random Forest II yielded
96.77% accuracy.
Ref.[25] proposed a hypothetical framework for novel data
mining algorithm known as condensed nearest neighbor (CNN)
algorithm to detect the CCF. CNN algorithm is a nonparametric
technique of classification with the aims of forming condensed set
for retaining the samples that are vital for decision making. It
targets is to minimize the number of attributes for comparison,
therefore creating a condensed training set with improvement in
query and memory requirements.
 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research work is presented in three phases. Firstly, the
dataset was collected from the UCI repository. Secondly, a data
pre-processing was carried out to remove redundancy in the
dataset. The third phase of CCF detection is applying three
machine learning techniques. This research work goal is to
improve the machine learning model to distinguish CCF based on
GA as a feature selection method. The NB, RF and SVM are used
to evaluate the performance of the GA on a German credit dataset.
Figure 1 presents the framework of the proposed system and
summarized the approach used in this work.
German Credit Data Preprocessing
card Dataset
Perform Feature Selection with GA
GA fitted features selected into two priorities
Training set Train NB,RF and SVM model
Test set
Predict the class label of the set
Performance evaluation
Figure1: Framework of the proposed credit card fraudulent model
A. German Dataset
German credit dataset has been utilized in this learning to
classify the transactions into genuine or fraud. The available
1093
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
dataset from the UCI repository is very partial [28]. The dataset
comprises 1000 instances (credit contenders) and 21 features (with
seven numerical, 14 definite/insignificant). With each instance
define the credit position of a specific member, either good or bad,
access in the dataset signifies an individual who takes credit from
a bank. Every individual is classified as good or bad credit with
respect to a set of features.
B. Feature Selection
Feature selection (FS) method reduces the redundant feature
in the dataset, therefore improving the learning performance [25].
FS method minimizes the impact of irrelevant features in CCFs
and enhance fraud detection rate.
C. Genetic Algorithm
GA technique is very popular technique in evolutionary
computation research. It is a replica of a natural selection
[26],[27]. It is applied widely in business, engineering and many
other domains. The approach ideal is to get an optimal solution to
a problem [28],[29]. GA consists of three essential operators, that
is, selection, crossover and mutation. Selection distinguishes the
most fitted individuals in the population set available, based on
fitness function[33]. Crossover merges the second half of the
original record with the first half of the second record. Mutation
randomly exchanges the 0’s with 1’s bit and vice versa.
The steps involved in GA is as follow:
Step 1: Create random chromosome ‘n’ population each
specifying a dissimilar response to the problem.
Step 2: Estimate the fitness of each ‘x’ chromosome.
Step 3: Generate new population to the point of completion of new
population.
Selection: Select higher fitness value dependent on the
chromosome of two parents.
a. Crossover: To generate new offspring for the parents to
cross over. It can be multi-point or one point.
b. Mutation: Concerning mutation, a few bits flip
haphazardly to transform new offspring.
c. The new population in the new population is placed in
the acceptance phase.
Step 4: In the replacement step, use a new population to keep the
calculation running.
Step 5: If the last condition is met, stop the phase in the testing
phase and restore the current population's optimum arrangement.
Step 6: Go to step 2 in the looping phase.
The GA parameter is configured as follows.
Population magnitude: 20
Sum of generations: 20
Probability of crossover: 0.6
Probability of mutation: 0.033
Account occurrence: 20
Arbitrary amount seed: 1
D. Naïve Bayes
Naive Bayes (NB) classification is built on the approach of
Bayesian theorem posterior probability. NB model works
excellently most especially when predictors have independent
classes. Though, sometimes it did well, even when predictors have
 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)

no distinctive independent class[34]. NB technique has two stages were considered and selected. Table 1 and Table 2 depicts the
of classified data. The first phase is known as the learning stage information about the features selected.
where the training dataset is input to the model and compute the
parameters of a probability distribution, with the notion that The priority features in the dataset are considered as the most
predictors are conditionally independent. The second stage is important feature in the dataset
prediction phase, where the unfamiliar data (test dataset) is supply
into NB classifier to predict and evaluate the posterior probability
of individual classes. Subsequently, the test dataset is classified Table 1: First Priority Features
based on the highest posterior probability.
NB is good method for a huge dataset, because no complex Features
Features Type
iterative parameter approximation involve [35]. It performs Number
efficiently in both the training and classification stages [36]. It
assumes that all features in the feature vector are equally 1 Position of a prevailing Nom
independent and essential [33]. checking account

2 Duration in month Num

E. Support Vector Machine
4 Purpose of the credit Nom
SVM is used to concept hyperplane to maximize the distance
between two types of structure. It gives a generalization power 5 Credit amount Num
from a small parameter [34].
6 Savings _status Nom
F. Performance Metrics
In this research work, positives class (P) denotes the number 9 Personal status Nom
of fraud transactions and negatives (N) means many non-fraud that
is, genuine transaction. 18 Num dependents Num

Precision (Rate of Hit): provides the accuracy in cases classified 20 Foreign worker Nom
as positive.
Where Nom means Nominal and Num means Numerical

Precision = (1) The GA is also used to selects another set of eight (8) features
( ) in the second stage. The selected attributes are shown in Table 2.
Recall (sensitivity or rate of fraud detection): Provides the Table 2: Second Priority Features
accuracy of positive (fake) case classification.
Features
Features Type
Recall (Sensitivity) = (2) Number
( )
4 Purpose of the credit Nom
Specificity: provides the accuracy of the classification of the non-
fraud case. 5 Credit amount Num

6 Savings _status Nom

Specificity = (3)
( )
7 Employment Nom
Accuracy: is the number of correct predictions of actual
application divided by the total number of predictions. 8 Repayment rate in Num
percentage of non-
( ) refundable income
Accuracy = (4)
( )
12 Property (example real Nom
Note: TP –True Positive, TN - True Negative, FP – False Positive, estate)
FN – False Negative
15 Housing (own or rent) Nom
G. Experimental Setup 18 Number of individuals Num
In this experiment, the German credit card data was being accountable to
considered for this research work. An efficient feature selection deliver upkeep for
based on Genetic Algorithm (GA) is proposed. The GA feature Where Nom means Nominal and Num means Numerical
selection technique is in two phases; the first phase is designated
as the first priority features where eight (8) attributes were selected IV. EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED
as the fittest attributes. The second stage is referred to as the MODEL
second priority feature, where another set of eight (8) attributes

1094
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)

The amount of fraud cases is commonly minimal as related to
the total amount of all transactions. The experiments performance
evaluation were carryout using ten folds cross-validation methods
since the dataset is imbalanced.
We performed experimental analysis on the second priority
features in Table 2 using the classifiers NB, RF and SVM, as
presented in Table 4. The NB, RF and SVM classifiers learn from
the training set of data and are also used on the test dataset to
classify and categorize the data into fraud and genuine
transactions. The results are presented in Table 4.

As shown in Table 4, the NB gave a sensitivity of 64.2%, a

specificity of 49.1%, and a precision of 58.2% and 64.2%
A. Experimental Results Analysis on the GA fitted accuracy. Whereas, the RF gave a sensitivity of 60%, specificity
First Priority Features. of 46.6%, precision of 56.1% and accuracy of 60%. The SVM
gave a sensitivity of 59%, specificity of 52.8%, precision of 56.2%
We performed experimental analysis on the first priority
and accuracy of 59%.
features in Table 1 using the classifiers NB, RF and SVM, as
presented in Table 3. Table 4. Performance measures of the second priority features
Table 3: Performance measures of the first priority features Performance
NB RF SVM
metrics
Performance
NB RF SVM
metrics Sensitivity 64.2 60.0 59.0
Sensitivity 94.3 96.4 96.3 Specificity 49.1 46.6 52.8
Specificity 96.7 96.3 96.3 Precision 58.2 56.1 56.2
Precision 94.7 96.5 92.7 Accuracy 64.2 60.0 59.0
Accuracy 94.3 96.40 96.3

Comparison of First and Second

As shown in Table 3, the NB gave a sensitivity of 94.3%, a
specificity of 96.7%, and a precision of 94.7% and 94.3%
features Priority for Precision,
accuracy. Whereas, the RF gave a sensitivity of 96.4%, specificity Specificity and Senstivity
of 96.3%, precision of 96.5% and accuracy of 96.40%. The SVM
gave a sensitivity of 96.3%, 96.3% specificity, and precision of
Sensitivity Specificity Precision

92.7% and accuracy of 96.3%. Therefore, RF outperformed other 2nd Priority

algorithms used in term of sensitivity, precision and accuracy
while NB has highest specificity. 1st Priority

2nd Priority
Classification Accuracy for the
1st Priority
two Priorities
2nd Priority

SVM 1st Priority

RF 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

SVM RF NB
NB

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Figure 3: Performances comparison for the two features

priorities
2nd Priority 1st Priority
The NB classifier outperforms RF and SVM in terms of
sensitivity, precision and accuracy. The SVM has the highest
Figure 2. Classification Accuracy comparison for the two features specificity when compared to NB and RF. SVM trade-offs its
priorities sensitivity, precision and accuracy.

B. Experimental Results Analysis on the GA fitted Figure 2 shows comparison of the two approaches based on
Second Priority Features. accuracy and it revealed that first priority performed better than
second priority. Also, figure 3 presented comparison based on

1095
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)
specificity, sensitivity and precision. Therefore, the results
revealed that the first priority features that are fitted by GA are the
essential features in the Credit Card fraudulent imbalance data.
V. CONCLUSION
With the recent advances in technology, credit cards have
become a popular means of making payments. Due to security
deficiencies in the operation, fraud has become a rising phase
resulting in losing millions of dollar yearly. Therefore, necessitate
fraud detection and prevention approach to minimize the fraud rate
in credit card payment. This study presented CCF detection using
machine learning approach. The proposed technique used Genetic
algorithm feature selection priority to enhance classification
algorithm. The results obtained revealed that RF performed better
than other classifiers based on accuracy in the first priority feature
selection. Also, first priority feature selection is the best approach
recommended for credit card detection system. Our future work
will focus on proposing other selecting features for learning
approaches such as the embedded feature selection method.
REFERENCES
[1] S. N. John, O. K. O, and C. G. Kennedy, “Realtime Fraud
Detection in the Banking Sector using Data Mining
Techniques / Algorithm,” in International Conference on
Computational Science and Computational Intelligence,
2016, pp. 1186–1191, doi: 10.1109/CSCI.2016.223.
[2] A. A. Taha and S. J. Malebary, “An Intelligent Approach
to Credit Card Fraud Detection Using an Optimized Light
Gradient Boosting Machine,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp.
25579–25587, 2020.
[3] R. Sailusha, V. Gnaneswar, R. Ramesh, and G. R. Rao,
“Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning,”
in Proceedings of the International Conference on
Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS
2020) IEEE, 2020, no. Iciccs, pp. 1264–1270.
[4] Y. Sahin, S. Bulkan, and E. Duman, “A Cost-sensitive
decision tree approach for fraud detection,” Expert
Ssytems Appl., vol. 40, no. 15, pp. 5916–5923, 2013.
[5] A. O. Adewumi and A. A. Akinyelu, “A survey of
machine-learning and nature-inspired based credit card
fraud detection techniques,” Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng.
Manag., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 937–953, 2017.
[6] E. Duman and M. H. Ozcelik, “Detecting credit card
fraud by genetic algorithm and scatter search,” Expert
Syst. Appl., vol. 38, no. 10, pp. 13057–13063, 2011.
[7] S. Xuan, G. Liu, Z. Li, L. Zheng, S. Wang, and C. Jiang,
“Random Forest for Credit Card Fraud Detection,” in
IEEE 15th International Conference on Networking,
Sensing and Control (ICNSC), 2018, pp. 1–6.
[8] S. Patil, V. Nemade, and P. Soni, “Predictive Modelling
For Credit Card Fraud Detection Using Data Analytics,”
Procedia Comput. Sci., vol. 132, pp. 385–395, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.procs.2018.05.199.
[9] Y. Lucas et al., “Towards automated feature engineering
1096
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
for credit card fraud detection using multi-perspective
HMMs,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., vol. 102, pp. 393–
402, 2020.
[10] J. O. Awoyemi, A. O. Adetunmbi, and S. A. Oluwadare,
“Credit card fraud detection using Machine Learning
Techniques : A Comparative Analysis,” in International
Conference on Computing Networking and Informatics
(ICCNI), 2017, pp. 1–9.
[11] F. N. Ogwueleka, “Data Mining Application in Credit
Card Fraud Detection System,” J. Eng. Sci. Technol., vol.
6, no. 3, pp. 311 – 322, 2011.
[12] S. Patil, H. Somavanshi, J. Gaikwad, A. Deshmane, and
R. Badgujar, “Credit Card Fraud Detection Using
Decision Tree Induction Algorithm,” Int. J. Comput. Sci.
Mob. Comput., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 92–95, 2015.
[13] K. R. Seeja and M. Zareapoor, “FraudMiner: A Novel
Credit Card Fraud Detection Model Based on Frequent
Itemset Mining,” Sci. World Journal, Hindawi Publ., vol.
Vol. 2014, pp. 1 – 10, 2014, doi: 10.1155/2014/252797.
[14] K. RamaKalyani and D. UmaDevi, “Fraud Detection of
Credit Card Payment System by Genetic Algorithm,” Int.
J. Sci. Eng. Res., vol. 3, no. 7, pp. 1 – 6, 2012.
[15] P. L. Meshram and P. Bhanarkar, “Credit and ATM Card
Fraud Detection Using Genetic Approach,” Int. J. Eng.
Res. Technol., vol. 1, no. 10, pp. 1 – 5, 2012.
[16] E. Duman, A. Buyukkaya, and I. Elikucuk, “A novel and
successful credit card fraud detection system
implemented in a turkish bank,” in Data Mining
Workshops (ICDMW), 2013 IEEE 13th International
Conference, 2013, pp. 162–171.
[17] A. C. Bahnsen, A. Stojanovic, D. Aouada, and B.
Ottersten, “Improving credit card fraud detection with
calibrated probabilities,” in 2014 SIAM International
Conference on Data Mining, 2014, pp. 677–685.
[18] G. Singh, R. Gupta, A. Rastogi, M. D. S. Chandel, Riyaz,
and A., “A Machine Learning Approach for Detection of
Fraud based on SVM,” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 1,
no. 3, pp. 194–198, 2012.
[19] A. Y. Ng and M. I. Jordan, “On discriminative vs.
generative classifiers: A comparison of logistic
regression and naive bayes,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process.
Syst., vol. 2, pp. 841–848, 2002.
[20] S. Maes, K. Tuyls, B. Vanschoenwinkel, and B.
Manderick, “Credit card fraud detection using Bayesian
and neural networks.,” in 1st international naiso
congress on neuro fuzzy technologies, 2002, pp. 261–
270.
[21] A. Shen, R. Tong, and Y. Deng, “Application of
classification models on credit card fraud detection,” in
2007 International Conference on Service Systems and
Service Management, IEEE, 2007, pp. 1–4.
 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA)

[22] S. Bhattacharyya, S. Jha, K. Tharakunnel, and J. C. [34] M. A. Hambali, Y. K. Saheed, T. O. Oladele, and M. D.
Westland, “Data mining for credit card fraud: A Gbolagade, “Adaboost Ensemble Algorithms for Breast
comparative study,” Decis. Support Syst., vol. 50, no. 3, Cancer,” J. Adv. Comput. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 31–52,
pp. 602–613, 2011. 2019.

[23] A. C. Bahnsen, A. Stojanovic, D. Aouada, and B.
Ottersten, “Cost sensitive credit card fraud detection
using Bayes minimum risk,” in 12th International
Conference on Machine Learning and Applications
(ICMLA), 2013, pp. 333–338.
[24] S. Stolfo, D. W. Fan, W. Lee, A. Prodromidis, and P.
Chan, “Credit card fraud detection using meta-learning:
Issues and initial results,” in AAAI-97 Workshop on
Fraud Detection and Risk Management, 1997.
[25] P. R. Vardhani, Y. I. Priyadarshini, Y. Narasimhulu, and
Á. C. N. N. Á. Nonparametric, CNN Data Mining
Algorithm for Detecting Credit Card Fraud. Singapore.:
Springer Singapore, 2019.
[35] K. Suresh and R. Dillibabu, “Designing a Machine
Learning Based Software Risk Assessment Model
Using Naïve Bayes Algorithm,” TAGA J., vol. 14, pp.
3141–3147, 2018.
[36] I. D. Dinov and I. D. Dinov, Probabilistic Learning:
Classification Using Naive Bayes. 2018.
[37] L. Li et al., “A robust hybrid between genetic algorithm
and support vector machine for extracting an optimal
feature gene subset,” Genomics, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 16–
23, 2005.

[26] M. Hegazy, A. Madian, and M. Ragaie, “Enhanced Fraud

Miner : Credit Card Fraud Detection using Clustering
Data Mining Techniques,” Egypt. Comput. Sci. J., vol.
40, no. 03, pp. 72–81, 2016.

[27] K. Randhawa, C. H. U. K. Loo, and S. Member, “Credit

Card Fraud Detection Using AdaBoost and Majority
Voting,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 14277–14284, 2018,
doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2806420.

[28] D. H. Hofmann, “UCI Machine Learning Repository,”

Irvine, CA: University of California, School of
Information and Computer Science, 1994.
https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/statlog+(german+
credit+data).

[29] Y. Saheed and A. Babatunde, “Genetic Algorithm

Technique In Program Path Coverage For Improving
Software Testing,” vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 151–158, 2014.

[30] A. H. Hamamoto, L. F. Carvalho, L. D. H. Sampaio, T.

Abrão, and M. L. Proença, “Network Anomaly Detection
System using Genetic Algorithm and Fuzzy Logic,”
Expert Syst. Appl., vol. 92, pp. 390–402, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.eswa.2017.09.013.

[31] Y. Zhang, P. Li, and X. Wang, “Intrusion Detection for

IoT Based on Improved Genetic Algorithm and Deep
Belief Network,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, no. c, pp. 31711–
31722, 2019, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2903723.

[32] A. Chaudhary and G. Shrimal, “Intrusion Detection

System Based on Genetic Algorithm for Detection of
Distribution Denial of Service Attacks in MANETs,”
SSRN Electron. J., pp. 370–377, 2019, doi:
10.2139/ssrn.3351807.

[33] B. Chakrabarty, O. Chanda, and M. Saiful, “Anomaly

based Intrusion Detection System using Genetic
Algorithm and K-Centroid Clustering,” Int. J. Comput.
Appl., vol. 163, no. 11, pp. 13–17, 2017, doi:
10.5120/ijca2017913762.

1097
Authorized licensed use limited to: Carleton University. Downloaded on May 28,2021 at 01:43:57 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.