ML Anomaly Detection for Expense Fraud

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing expense management systems face challenges in accurately and efficiently auditing travel and reimbursable expenses, particularly in detecting fraudulent submissions such as duplicate or machine-generated receipts, which can lead to resource wastage and revenue loss.

Innovation Solution

Implementing machine learning models for automated expense report auditing, including OCR, receipt token extraction, and policy compliance verification, to replace or augment human auditors, providing real-time feedback and reducing human error.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If machine learning models are implemented for automated expense report auditing, then auditing efficiency and accuracy are improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveauditing efficiencyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The auditing system is divided into multiple specialized machine learning models, each trained to detect specific types of fraud (duplicate receipts, machine-generated receipts, altered receipts). This segmentation allows the system to handle different fraud detection tasks independently, improving overall efficiency while managing complexity through modular architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary processing layer that receives expense reports, routes them to appropriate ML models based on detected fraud indicators, and aggregates results. This intermediary manages the complexity of coordinating multiple ML models while maintaining high auditing throughput and accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Measurement precision

If multiple machine learning models are used for comprehensive fraud detection, then detection accuracy improves, but processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefraud detection accuracyVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary analysis using lightweight ML models first to identify suspicious patterns or indicators of fraud. Only reports showing fraud indicators are then subjected to more comprehensive analysis by additional specialized models. This preliminary filtering reduces the number of reports requiring full multi-model analysis, maintaining high accuracy while reducing average processing time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements a continuous auditing pipeline where ML models process expense reports in real-time as they are submitted, rather than batch processing. This continuous action allows the system to provide immediate feedback and maintain high detection accuracy across all reports without significant delays, as the workflow remains uninterrupted and efficiently utilized.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #20Continuity of useful action

3Reliability

If automated ML-based auditing is implemented, then human error is reduced, but initial implementation cost and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereduction of human errorVSAvoidimplementation complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The ML models are trained using historical expense report data and fraud cases from the organization's own past experiences. The system learns from its own historical data to detect fraud patterns specific to the organization, reducing the need for external expertise and simplifying implementation while maintaining high reliability through organization-specific learning.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system incorporates feedback mechanisms where audit results (both automated ML decisions and manual reviewer corrections) are fed back into the training data. This continuous feedback loop allows the ML models to improve their accuracy over time based on actual performance, reducing human error while the incremental learning approach makes implementation more manageable by starting with baseline models that improve progressively.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentEP3761227B1Anomaly and fraud detection with fake event detection using machine learning
Publication Date: 2026.03.04 SAP SE
  • EP3761227B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3761227B1 patent drawingFigure 2A
  • EP3761227B1 patent drawingFigure 2B

AI summary

The present disclosure involves systems, software, and computer implemented methods for transaction auditing. One example method includes training at least one machine learning model to determine features that can be used to determine whether an image is an authentic image of a document or an automatically generated document image, using a training set of authentic images and a training set of automatically generated document images. A request to classify an image as either an authentic image of a document or an automatically generated document image is received. The machine learning model(s) are used to classify the image as either an authentic image of a document or an automatically generated document image, based on features included in the image that are identified by the machine learning model(s). A classification of the image is provided. The machine learning model(s) are updated based on the image and the classification of the image.