Fraud detection – decision trees versus support vector machines (classification)

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 by Romakanta Irungbam Mail to a friend

My first thought when I was asked to learn and use Oracle Data Mining (ODM) was, “Oh no! Yet another Data Mining Software!!!”

It’s been about 2 weeks now since I have been using ODM, particularly focusing on two classification techniques – Decision Trees & Support Vector Machines. As I don’t want to get into the details of the interface/usability of ODM (unless Oracle pays me!!), I will limit this post on a comparison of these two classification techniques at a very basic level, using ODM.

A very brief introduction of DT & SVM.

DT – A flow chart or diagram representing a classification system or a predictive model. The tree is structured as a sequence of simple questions. The answers to these questions trace a path down the tree. The end product is a collection of hierarchical rules that segment the data into groups, where a decision (classification or prediction) is made for each group.

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , ,

3 Responses to “Fraud detection – decision trees versus support vector machines (classification)”

  1. Eric Lecoutre Says:

    Hi,

    I can see a problem with your conclusions.
    If you look at the confusion matrices, you can see that
    - for DT there are a total of 72 cases predicted as 1. The 61 correctly classified represent 85% of those predictions.
    - for SVM, there are a total of 278+79=357 cases predicted as 1. The 79 correctly predicted represent only 22% of those ones.
    Both learnings methods rely on parameters you may change to adjust what somewhat is the cutpoint of predictions 0/1.
    If a am a fraud detection organism, I prefer DT: making verifications has a cost. Having the estimation that doing less verifications to have more real frauders is of great interest…
    Another way to say it is: do verifications for all 127.000 people, you will find all frauders!
    That’s why one introduce the notion cost matrix ; it is not clear to me what the prefered modeling would then be.
    BTW, where can I find this dataset? There is an modeling approch I would like to test for comparisons and assessment purpose.
    Kind regards,
    Eric

  2. datalligence Says:

    hi eric,

    the business requirement was to identify fraudulent transations and the data was at the transaction level. so a customer can have multiple transactions in the data.

    some businesses require the false positives to be on the lower side, some prefer it to be on the higher side. here, the idea was to deploy the model in real-time so that transactions suspected to be fraudulent can be put on hold or cancelled. as such, a higher FP was ok as long as the model could capture more number of fraudulent transactions.

    but i guess, i generalized a little too much when i first wrote this! as for the data, sorry, no comments :)

  3. Geert Bilcke Says:

    Hi,
    I think it is a bit “unfair” to compare a strong learner (SVM) with a weak learner (DT), especially if you work with a –for data mining standards– very small minority class (300.000 * 0.06% = only 180 positive targets).
    With such a dataset strong learners (e.g. logistic regression) will always outperform a single decision tree. Try doing the exercise with DT bagging and I am sure your conclusion will be totally different.
    Geert

Leave a Reply