Advertisement

Automobile Insurance Fraud Detection Using Social Network Analysis

  • Arezo Bodaghi
  • Babak TeimourpourEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Social Networks book series (LNSN)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is detection of organized groups of fraudsters causing more leakage revenue for insurance industry, automobile in particular. Networks play significant roles in representing any relations between entities; thus, they are effective in distinguishing organized fraud activities. We proposed a method by which the groups of perpetrators whose relation form are cycles in the network of accidents.

Keywords

Fraud detection Automobile insurance Social network analysis Community detection Fraud cycle detection 

References

  1. 1.
    White Paper. (2011). The insurance fraud race: Using information and analytics to stay ahead of criminals. Featuring as an example: SAS® Fraud Framework for Insurance.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nian, K., Zhang, H., Tayal, A., Coleman, T., & Li, Y. (2016). Auto insurance fraud detection using unsupervised spectral ranking for anomaly. The Journal of Finance and Data Science, 2(1), 58–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brockett, P. L., & Levine, A. (1977). Characterization of RIDITs. Annals of Statistics, 5(6), 1245–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Šubelj, L., Furlan, Š., & Bajec, M. (2011). An expert system for detecting automobile insurance fraud using social network analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 1039–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.07.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhou, J., Xu, W., Guo, X., & Ding, J. (2015). A method for modeling and analysis of directed weighted accident causation network (DWACN). Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 437, 263–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noble, C. C., & Cook, D. J. (2003). Graph-based anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and datamining (pp. 631–636).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holder, L. B., & Cook, D. J. (2003). Graph-based relational learning: Current and future directions. SIGKDD Explorations, 5(1), 90–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxion, R. A., & Tan, K. M. C. (2000). Benchmarking anomaly-based detection systems. In Proceedings of the international conference on dependable systems and networks (pp. 623–630).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, J., Qu, H., Chakravarti, D., & Faloutsos, C. (2005). Relevance search and anomaly detection in bipartite graphs. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, 7(2), 48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks—Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cormen, T., Leiserson, C., Rivest, R., & Stein, C. (2002). Introduction to algorithms (2nd ed.p. 1312). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press ISBN: 9780262033848.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of IT Engineering, School of Industrial and Systems EngineeringTarbiat Modares UniversityTehranIran

Personalised recommendations