mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Evaluating categorical encoding methods on a real credit card fraud detection database

arXiv 2112.12024 ↗First posted 22 Dec 2021cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Correctly dealing with categorical data in a supervised learning context is still a major issue. Furthermore, though some machine learning methods embody builtin methods to deal with categorical features, it is unclear whether they bring some improvements and how do they compare with usual categorical encoding methods. In this paper, we describe several well-known categorical encoding methods that are based on target statistics and weight of evidence. We apply them on a large and real credit card fraud detection database. Then, we train the encoded databases using state-of-the-art gradient boosting methods and evaluate their performances. We show that categorical encoding methods generally bring substantial improvements with respect to the absence of encoding. The contribution of this work is twofold: (1) we compare many state-of-the-art "lite" categorical encoding methods on a large scale database and (2) we use a real credit card fraud detection database.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 3 of its 14 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 Dec 2021.

Builds on

3 of 14 references.

References · 3

  1. 2019Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frameworkcited by 2,501
  2. 2018CatBoost: gradient boosting with categorical features supportcited by 208
  3. 2020Credit card fraud detection using machine learning: A surveycited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 2.

3 papers.