Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A dynamic stage-based fraud monitoring framework of multiple live auctions

  • Published:
Applied Intelligence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Monitoring the progress of auctions for fraudulent bidding activities is crucial for detecting and stopping fraud during runtime to prevent fraudsters from succeeding. To this end, we introduce a stage-based framework to monitor multiple live auctions for In-Auction Fraud (IAF). Creating a stage fraud monitoring system is different than what has been previously proposed in the very limited studies on runtime IAF detection. More precisely, we launch the IAF monitoring operation at several time points in each running auction depending on its duration. At each auction time point, our framework first detects IAF by evaluating each bidder’s stage activities based on the most reliable set of IAF patterns, and then takes appropriate actions to react to dishonest bidders. We develop the proposed framework with a dynamic agent architecture where multiple monitoring agents can be created and deleted with respect to the status of their corresponding auctions (initialized, completed or cancelled). The adoption of dynamic software architecture represents an excellent solution to the scalability and time efficiency issues of IAF monitoring systems since hundreds of live auctions are held simultaneously in commercial auction houses. Every time an auction is completed or terminated, the participants’ fraud scores are updated dynamically. Our approach enables us to observe each bidder in each live auction and manage his fraud score as well. We validate the IAF monitoring service through commercial auction data. We conduct three experiments to detect and react to shill-bidding fraud by employing datasets acquired from auctions of two valuable items, Palm PDA and XBOX. We observe each auction at three-time points, verifying the shill patterns that most likely happen in the corresponding stage for each one.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abedinzadeh S, Sadaoui S (2013) A Rough Sets-based Agent Trust Management Framework. Inter J Intel Syst Appl 5(4):1–19. doi:10.5815/ijisa.2013.04.01

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balingit R., Trevathan J., Lee Y., Read W. (2009) A software tool for collecting data from online auctions. In: Proceedings the 6 th International Conference on Information Technology: New, Generations, pp. 922–927. doi:10.1109/ITNG.2009.147

  3. Braubach L, Pokahr A, Lamersdorf W (2005) Jadex: A BDI-Agent System Combining Middleware and Reasoning. In: Umland R, Klusch M, Calisti M (eds) Software Agent-Based Applications, Platforms, and Development Kits, Whitestein Series in Software Agent Technology, pp 143-168. doi:10.1007/1.1.115.8533

  4. Bryan D, Lucking-Reiley D, Prasad N, Reeves D (2007) Pennies from eBay: The Determinants of Price in Online Auctions. J Ind Econ 55(2):223–233. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Buccafurri F, Comi A, Lax G, Rosaci D (2016) Experimenting with Certified Reputation in a Competitive Multi-Agent Scenario. IEEE Intell Syst 31(1):48–55. doi:10.1109/MIS.2015.98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cauwenberghs G, Poggio T (2001) Incremental and Decremental Support Vector Machine Learning. Adv Neural Inf Proces Syst 13:409–415. doi:10.1007/1.1.92.2608

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chang W., Chang J. S. (2011) A novel two-stage phased modeling framework for early fraud detection in online auctions. Expert Syst Appl 38(9):11244–11260. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.172

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Chau D, Pandit S, Faloutsos C (2006) Detecting Fraudulent Personalities in Networks of Online Auctioneers. The Tenth European Conference on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Database, pp. 103-114. doi:10.1007/11871637_14

  9. Dong F, Shatz SM, Xu H, Majumdar D (2012) Price comparison: A reliable approach to identifying shill bidding in online auctions Electron Commer Res Appl 11(2):171–179. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2011.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dong F, Shatz SM, Xu H (2010) Reasoning under Uncertainty for Shill Detection in Online Auctions Using Dempster-Shafer Theory. Int J Softw Eng Knowl Eng 20(7):943–973. doi:10.1142/S0218194010005018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dong F, Shatz S, Xu H (2009) Combating online in-auction frauds: Clues, techniques and challenges. Comput Sci Review 3(4):245–258. doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2009.09.001

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Engelberg J, Williams JJ (2009) eBay’s proxy bidding: A license to shill. J Econ Behavior Organ 72 (1):509–526. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2009.05.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ford BJ, Xu H, Valova I (2013) A Real-Time Self-Adaptive Classifier for Identifying Suspicious Bidders in Online Auctions. Comput J 56(5):646–663. doi:10.1093/comjnl/bxs025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ford BJ, Xu H, Valova I (2010) Identifying Suspicious Bidders Utilizing Hierarchical Clustering and Decision Trees. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence ICA, pp. 195–201. doi:10.1007/1.1.192.2764

  15. Goel A, Xu H, Shatz SM (2010) A Multi-State Bayesian Network for Shill Verification in Online Auctions. In: Proc. of the 22nd Int. Conf. on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, USA, pp. 279–285. doi:10.1007/1.1.189.1213

  16. IC3 The Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), http://www.ic3.gov, last accessed September 2015

  17. Jank W., Shmueli G. (2010) Modeling Online Auctions. Wiley, New York

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Kauffman R, Wood CA (2007) Irregular bidding from opportunism: an explanation of shilling in online auctions. Inf Syst Res 5:1–36. doi:10.1007/1.1.106.1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Khomnota L, Lin J-L (2015) Detecting Fraudsters in Online Auction Using Variations of Neighbor Diversity. Inter J Engin Techn Innovation 5(3):156–16. doi:10.3390/e16052629

    Google Scholar 

  20. Grzegorz K, Sławomir B (2015) Identification of Shill Bidding for Online Auctions Using Anomaly Detection, New Trends in Intelligent Information and Database Systems, Studies in Computational Intelligence. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16211-9_12

  21. Lie B, Zhang H, Chen H, Liu L, Wang D (2012) A K-means Clustering Based Algorithm for Shill Bidding Recognition in Online Auction. In: 24th Chinese Control and Decision Conference, IEEE, pp. 939–943. doi:10.1109/CCDC.2012.6244147

  22. Manikanteswari DSL, Swathi M, nagendranath MVSS (2013) Machine Learning Approach to Handle Fraud Bids. Inter J Development of Comput Sci Technol 1(5):56–61

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mundra A, Rakesh N (2013) Online Hybrid Model for Online Fraud Prevention and Detection. Intelligent Computing, Networking, and Informatics, pp. 805-815. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-1665-0_81

  24. Patel R, Xu H, Goel A (2007) Real-Time Trust Management in Agent Based Online Auction Systems. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, pp. 244–250 . doi:10.1007/1.1.189.4463

  25. Rao A, Georgeff M (1995) BDI Agents: from theory to practice. In: Lesser V (ed) Proc. of the First International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, ICMAS, pp 312-319, USA. doi:10.1007/1.1.37.7970

  26. Ravisankar P, Ravi V, Raghava Rao G, Bose I (2011) Detection of Financial Statement Fraud and Feature Selection using Data Mining Techniques. Decis Support Syst 50(2):491–500. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sadaoui S, Wang X, Qi D (2015) A Real-Time Monitoring Framework For Online Auctions Frauds. In: Current Approaches in Applied Artificial Intelligence. June 2015. Springer, pp 97–108

  28. Shehory O, Sturm A (2014) Multi-agent Systems: A Software Architecture Viewpoint. J Agent-Oriented Softw Eng:57–78. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-54432-3_4

  29. Sycara K (1998) Multiagent Systems. A Mag:79–92. doi:10.1609/amag.v19i2.1370

  30. Trevathan J, Read W (2009) Detecting Shill Bidding in Online English Auctions. Handbook of research on social and organizational liabilities in information security:446–470. doi:10.1007/1.1.61.7728

  31. Trevathan J, Read W (2007) Investigating Shill Bidding Behaviors Involving Colluding Bidders. J Comput 2(10):63–75. doi:10.4304/jcp.2.10.63-75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Trevathan J, Read W (2006) Undesirable and Fraudulent Behaviour in Online Auctions. In: Proc. of the International Conference on Security and Cryptography Conference, Portugal, pp. 450–458. doi:10.1007/1.1.61.7441

  33. Tsang S, Koh Y, Dobbie G, Alam S (2014) Detecting online auction shilling frauds using supervised learning. Expert Syst Appl 41(6):3027–3040. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2013.10.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tsang S, Dobbie G, Koh S (2012) Evaluating Fraud Detection Algorithms Using an Auction Data Generator. In: Proc. of IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, pp. 332–339. doi:10.1109/ICDMW.2012.34

  35. Wang Y, Zhang J, Vassileva J (2014) A super-agent-based framework for reputation management and community formation in decentralized systems. Comput Intell 30(4):722–751. doi:10.1111/coin.12026

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  36. Wong H, Sycara K (2000) A Taxonomy of Middle Agents for the Internet. doi:10.1007/1.1.43.6078

  37. Wooldridge M, Jennings NR (1995) Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice. Knowledge Eng Rev 10 (2):115–152. doi:10.1007/1.1.55.2702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Xu H, Bates C, Shatz SM (2009) Model Checking for Shill Detection in Live Online Auctions. In: Software Engineering Research and Practice, pp. 134–140. doi:10.1007/1.1.529.5339

  39. Xu H, Shatz SM, Bates CK (2008) A Framework for Agent-Based Trust Management in Online Auctions. ITNG:149–155. doi:10.1109/ITNG.2008.22

  40. Yoshida T, Ohwada H (2010) Shill Bidder Detection for Online Auctions, PRICAI 2010: Trends in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 351-358. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-15246-7_33

  41. Yu C, Lin S (2013) Fuzzy rule optimization for online auction frauds detection based on genetic algorithm. Electron Commer Res 13(2):169–182. doi:10.1007/s10660-013-9113-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Yu C-H, Lin S-J (2008) Parallel Crawling and Capturing for On-Line Auction. In: Yang et al. (ed) LNCS, Vol. 5075, workshops, pp. 455-466. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69304-8_48

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Regina, Regina, SK, Canada

    Samira Sadaoui & Xuegang Wang

Authors
  1. Samira Sadaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xuegang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samira Sadaoui.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sadaoui, S., Wang, X. A dynamic stage-based fraud monitoring framework of multiple live auctions. Appl Intell 46, 197–213 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-016-0818-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-016-0818-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation