PAKDD 2009 Data Mining Competition
We are pleased to announce the top 10 performers of the PAKDD 2009 Competition. The top three performers will be awarded a trophy at the Competition Workshop during the PAKDD Conference on April 30. The top 10 performers listed here who attend the workshop will have an opportunity to detail their approach and have them submitted for publication in the post conference LNCS series proceedings. A certificate will be given to these top performers at the workshop.
Result
Ranking Team Name Institution AUC_ROC Metrics Manuscript
1 Equinox (Soumya Dasgupta, Zalihe Ismail, Kishore C Nair, Naveen Kumar,Hemanth L Gurur) ANZ
0.6588
PDF
2 Weka1(Bernhard Pfahringer) University of Waikato
0.6569
PDF
3 Logit (Altina Buchris, Chaim Linhart, Guy Harari, Sharon Abramovich) Tel-Aviv University, ISRAEL
0.6550
PDF
4 TDMS (David Vogel, Philip Brierley) Tiberius Data Mining Solutions
0.6540
PDF
5 Deep Think (Hongrui Xie, Shiqiang Zheng, Shuli Han, Xinyi Shu, Xinzhu Yang, Xiuyun Qu) Tsinghua University
0.6535
PDF
6 bmisgrin (Ning Situ) University of Houston
0.6518
PDF
7 Serendipity (Patrick Martin) Patrick Martin
0.6514
PDF
8 Crusaders (Priya Balakrishnan, Srividhya Kannan) LatentView Analytics
0.6513
PDF
9 Oceano (A.Elil Iniyan, G.JayaKumar, K.Karthikeyan, L.Jani Fathima, R.Gnana Sundari, S.Prakash) Cognizant Technology Solution
0.6511
PDF
10 ZWJ (wenjun) Zhejiang University of S&T
0.6510
PDF
10 CRC (Jonathan Crook, Tony Bellotti) University of Edinburgh
0.6510
PDF
See the results of your team
Team Name*
Password*

Great ideas have been proposed to solve the proposed problem and most of them have achieved good performance. In near future, the site will be open to new submissions for scientific benchmarking.
Some other good approaches not listed here may be invited later on to present their research at the workshop.
The competition committee has chosen to make publicly available the results initially only of the top 10 performers. The other participants should return to this page next week to get informed on how to get their competition score and those who wish to have their results made public in this table should inform us about it.
Unfortunately, some teams with multiplicity in their member registration and LeaderBoard Submission did not have their submission assessed for not having adhered to the competition rules.
The organizing and scientific committees thank all the participants in this motivating competition. We would like to receive suggestions on how to improve the organization of future competitions.
Locations of visitors to this page