mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Challenging Gradient Boosted Decision Trees with Tabular Transformers for Fraud Detection at Booking.com

arXiv 2405.13692 ↗First posted 22 May 2024cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Transformer-based neural networks, empowered by Self-Supervised Learning (SSL), have demonstrated unprecedented performance across various domains. However, related literature suggests that tabular Transformers may struggle to outperform classical Machine Learning algorithms, such as Gradient Boosted Decision Trees (GBDT). In this paper, we aim to challenge GBDTs with tabular Transformers on a typical task faced in e-commerce, namely fraud detection. Our study is additionally motivated by the problem of selection bias, often occurring in real-life fraud detection systems. It is caused by the production system affecting which subset of traffic becomes labeled. This issue is typically addressed by sampling randomly a small part of the whole production data, referred to as a Control Group. This subset follows a target distribution of production data and therefore is usually preferred for training classification models with standard ML algorithms. Our methodology leverages the capabilities of Transformers to learn transferable representations using all available data by means of SSL, giving it an advantage over classical methods. Furthermore, we conduct large-scale experiments, pre-training tabular Transformers on vast amounts of data instances and fine-tuning them on smaller target datasets. The proposed approach outperforms heavily tuned GBDTs by a considerable margin of the Average Precision (AP) score in offline evaluations. Finally, we report the results of an online A/B experiment. Experimental results confirm the superiority of tabular Transformers compared to GBDTs in production, demonstrated by a statistically significant improvement in our business metric.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2024.

Builds on

22 of 44 references.

References · 22

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2015FaceNet: A Unified Embedding for Face Recognition and Clusteringcited by 2,833
  3. 2020On Layer Normalization in the Transformer Architecturecited by 906
  4. 2017In Defense of the Triplet Loss for Person Re-Identificationcited by 784
  5. 2021Revisiting Deep Learning Models for Tabular Datacited by 725
  6. 2022TabPFN: A Transformer That Solves Small Tabular Classification Problems in a Secondcited by 643
  7. 2020TabTransformer: Tabular Data Modeling Using Contextual Embeddingscited by 398
  8. 2018AutoInt: Automatic Feature Interaction Learning via Self-Attentive Neural Networkscited by 319
  9. 2021SAINT: Improved Neural Networks for Tabular Data via Row Attention and Contrastive Pre-Trainingcited by 310
  10. 2020A Brief Review of Domain Adaptationcited by 287
  11. 2019A review of domain adaptation without target labelscited by 154
  12. 2021SCARF: Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning using Random Feature Corruptioncited by 151
10 more
  1. 2021Self-Attention Between Datapoints: Going Beyond Individual Input-Output Pairs in Deep Learningcited by 112
  2. 2020Revisiting Training Strategies and Generalization Performance in Deep Metric Learningcited by 99
  3. 2022Deep Isolation Forest for Anomaly Detectioncited by 90
  4. 2018Training Tips for the Transformer Modelcited by 85
  5. 2023TabR: Tabular Deep Learning Meets Nearest Neighbors in 2023cited by 73
  6. 2022Transfer Learning with Deep Tabular Modelscited by 52
  7. 2022Revisiting Pretraining Objectives for Tabular Deep Learningcited by 43
  8. 2022T2G-Former: Organizing Tabular Features into Relation Graphs Promotes Heterogeneous Feature Interactioncited by 41
  9. 2022BRIGHT -- Graph Neural Networks in Real-Time Fraud Detectioncited by 15
  10. 2021Machine Learning for Fraud Detection in E-Commerce: A Research Agendacited by 5

Built on by

Not cited yet.