Cross-Service Fraud Estimation Using Fraud and Authentic User Comparison

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing fraud estimation systems struggle to accurately identify fraudulent users whose activities do not resemble those on a blacklist, limiting the precision of fraud detection.

Innovation Solution

A fraud estimation system that utilizes a learning model to analyze user information across multiple services, comparing user data from different platforms to determine fraud likelihood, incorporating utilization situations, and employing machine learning techniques like neural networking and deep learning to enhance precision.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If comparison is made only with users on the blacklist, then users with similar fraudulent patterns can be detected, but fraud detection precision cannot be raised to a satisfactorily high level because fraudulent users' activities do not always resemble those on the blacklist

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefraud detection precisionVSAvoidability to detect diverse fraudulent patterns
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the comparison target into two distinct groups: fraudulent users and authentic users. By separately comparing the target user's action history against both groups, the system can identify patterns that distinguish fraudulent behavior from legitimate behavior, thereby improving detection precision for diverse fraudulent patterns that may not resemble existing blacklist entries.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent changes the comparison parameter from solely matching fraudulent patterns (blacklist similarity) to a dual-parameter approach that measures both similarity to fraudulent users and similarity to authentic users. This parameter transformation enables the system to detect fraud even when the fraudulent pattern is novel or different from known blacklist patterns, by identifying deviations from authentic user behavior.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Ease of manufacture

If action histories are compared to blacklist users only, then detection can be performed with simple methodology, but only users whose activities resemble those on the blacklist are detectable

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection methodology simplicityVSAvoidfraud detection reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent divides the reference user group into two segments: fraudulent users and authentic users. This segmentation maintains methodological simplicity by using the same comparison technique for both groups while significantly improving detection reliability. The system can now reliably detect both known fraudulent patterns and novel fraudulent patterns that differ from authentic behavior, without complicating the core comparison methodology.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple services are integrated for comparison, then fraud detection coverage is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecross-service fraud detection capabilityVSAvoidsystem architecture complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal comparison framework that can handle multiple services through a single unified mechanism. The action history comparison method is designed to be service-agnostic, accepting action histories from any service and comparing them against reference users from any service. This multi-functional approach improves cross-service fraud detection coverage while avoiding the need for service-specific detection systems, thereby limiting the increase in overall system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP3955143B1Fraud deduction system, fraud deduction method, and program
Publication Date: 2026.03.11 RAKUTEN GROUP INC
  • EP3955143B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3955143B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP3955143B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

Storage means (100c) of a fraud estimation system (S) stores a learning model that has learned a relationship between a comparison result that is a result of comparing user information of a user in one service to user information of a fraudulent user or an authentic user in another service and presence or absence of fraudulence in the one service. Comparison result obtaining means (104c) obtains a comparison result that is a result of comparing user information of a target user in the one service and user information of a fraudulent user or an authentic user in the another service. Output obtaining means (105c) obtains output from the learning model based on the comparison result. Estimation means (106c) estimates fraudulence of the target user based on the output from the learning model.