US20090192855A1 - Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems - Google Patents

Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems Download PDF

Info

Publication number
US20090192855A1
US20090192855A1 US12418186 US41818609A US2009192855A1 US 20090192855 A1 US20090192855 A1 US 20090192855A1 US 12418186 US12418186 US 12418186 US 41818609 A US41818609 A US 41818609A US 2009192855 A1 US2009192855 A1 US 2009192855A1
Authority
US
Grant status
Application
Patent type
Prior art keywords
entity
fraud
data
system
type
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Abandoned
Application number
US12418186
Inventor
Revathi Subramanian
Radu Drossu
Chao-Wen (Kevin) Chen
Paul C. Dulany
Original Assignee
Revathi Subramanian
Radu Drossu
Chen Chao-Wen Kevin
Dulany Paul C
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date

Links

Images

Classifications

    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/02Banking, e.g. interest calculation, credit approval, mortgages, home banking or on-line banking
    • G06Q40/025Credit processing or loan processing, e.g. risk analysis for mortgages
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q10/00Administration; Management
    • G06Q10/04Forecasting or optimisation, e.g. linear programming, "travelling salesman problem" or "cutting stock problem"
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q20/00Payment architectures, schemes or protocols
    • G06Q20/38Payment protocols; Details thereof
    • G06Q20/40Authorisation, e.g. identification of payer or payee, verification of customer or shop credentials; Review and approval of payers, e.g. check credit lines or negative lists
    • G06Q20/401Transaction verification
    • G06Q20/4016Transaction verification involving fraud or risk level assessment in transaction processing
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce, e.g. shopping or e-commerce
    • G06Q30/01Customer relationship, e.g. warranty
    • G06Q30/018Business or product certification or verification
    • G06Q30/0185Product, service or business identity fraud
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce, e.g. shopping or e-commerce
    • G06Q30/02Marketing, e.g. market research and analysis, surveying, promotions, advertising, buyer profiling, customer management or rewards; Price estimation or determination
    • G06Q30/0202Market predictions or demand forecasting
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q30/00Commerce, e.g. shopping or e-commerce
    • G06Q30/06Buying, selling or leasing transactions
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/02Banking, e.g. interest calculation, credit approval, mortgages, home banking or on-line banking
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/06Investment, e.g. financial instruments, portfolio management or fund management
    • GPHYSICS
    • G06COMPUTING; CALCULATING; COUNTING
    • G06QDATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS OR METHODS, SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL, SUPERVISORY OR FORECASTING PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
    • G06Q40/00Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
    • G06Q40/12Accounting

Abstract

Systems and methods for performing fraud detection. As an example, a system and method can be configured to contain a raw data repository for storing raw data related to financial transactions. A data store contains rules to indicate how many generations or to indicate a time period within which data items are to be stored in the raw data repository. Data items stored in the raw data repository are then accessed by a predictive model in order to perform fraud detection.

Description

    CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
  • This application claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/786,038 (entitled “Computer-Implemented Data Storage For Predictive Model Systems” and filed on Mar. 24, 2006), of which the entire disclosure (including any and all figures) is incorporated herein by reference.
  • This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/691,277 (entitled “Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems and Methods for Use with Predictive Model Systems”), of which the entire disclosure (including any and all figures) is incorporated herein by reference.
  • This application contains subject matter that may be considered related to subject matter disclosed in U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/786,039 (entitled “Computer-Implemented Predictive Model Generation Systems And Methods” and filed on Mar. 24, 2006), and to U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/786,040 (entitled “Computer-Implemented Predictive Model Scoring Systems And Methods” and filed on Mar. 24, 2006), of which the entire disclosures (including any and all figures) of these applications are incorporated herein by reference.
  • TECHNICAL FIELD
  • This document relates generally to computer predictive models and more particularly to constructing and using computer predictive models.
  • BACKGROUND
  • Computer predictive models have been used for many years in a diverse number of areas, such as in the financial industry. However current methods have difficulty in providing an automated or semi-automated mechanism for determining whether a suspicious activity, such as credit card fraud, may have occurred. As an illustration, previous systems experience problems in generating fraud indicative scores because such systems generally store aggregated/derived data and not raw data, thereby losing relevant history associated with an entity to perform scoring. Moreover, aggregated/derived data is specifically suited for a particular application and purpose (e.g., a fraud scoring purpose), but lacks flexibility to readily be used by other types of scoring applications.
  • SUMMARY
  • In accordance with the teachings provided herein, systems and methods for operation upon data processing devices are provided for performing fraud detection. As an example, a system and method can be configured to contain a raw data repository for storing raw data related to financial transactions. A data store contains rules to indicate how many generations or a time period within which data items are to be stored in the raw data repository. Data items stored in the raw data repository are then accessed by a predictive model in order to perform fraud detection.
  • BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES
  • FIG. 1 is a block diagram depicting a computer-implemented system for generating and using predictive models to assess whether fraudulent activity may have occurred.
  • FIG. 2 is a block diagram depicting examples of input data.
  • FIG. 3 is a graph showing an account compromise period.
  • FIG. 4 is a block diagram depicting use of non-monetary information.
  • FIG. 5 is a block diagram depicting a system being configured to produce a score even in the absence of a current or new transaction on the account.
  • FIGS. 6 and 7 are time line graphs showing a transaction time line and a scoring trigger time line.
  • FIG. 8 is a block diagram depicting examples of client-defined events.
  • FIG. 9 is a block diagram depicting a system for storing information for use in fraud detection.
  • FIG. 10 is a block diagram depicting storage of fields within a data storage system.
  • FIG. 11 is a block diagram depicting a determination of the number of generations to store for a field.
  • FIG. 12 is a block diagram depicting an approach to determine storage rules for a system.
  • FIG. 13 is a block diagram depicting another approach to determine storage rules for a system.
  • FIG. 14 is a block diagram depicting storage of information in its raw/unprocessed form.
  • FIGS. 15-18 are block diagrams depicting systems configured with missing value imputation processing capability.
  • FIG. 19 is a flowchart depicting a training approach to address fraud on an account-level fashion.
  • FIG. 20 illustrates a data partitioning example.
  • FIG. 21 is a block diagram depicting an iterative training approach.
  • FIG. 22 illustrates example scoring results.
  • FIGS. 23-25 provide another example for training a model.
  • FIG. 26 is a block diagram depicting a reason code determination process that can be used to create reason codes for a scoring system/predictive model.
  • FIG. 27 is a block diagram depicting construction of reason codes.
  • FIG. 28 is a flowchart depicting construction of reason codes.
  • FIG. 29 is a flowchart depicting importance of a reason factor to a score.
  • FIGS. 30-32 are block diagrams depicting a view selector module that allows a user or computer program to select an entity or type of entity for analysis.
  • FIGS. 33 and 34 are block diagrams depicting an integrated system for fraud analysis.
  • DETAILED DESCRIPTION
  • FIG. 1 depicts at 30 a computer-implemented system for generating and using predictive models 34 to assess whether fraudulent activity may have occurred. Accurate detection of fraud is important in that it results in action being taken earlier and in a more effective manner for addressing the fraudulent activity. An action could include for example whether a credit card company should personally investigate if fraud may have occurred with respect to a particular credit card holder. It should also be understood that the system 30 can be configured to process one entity or many entities.
  • As shown in FIG. 1, input data 32 is used during a development phase to create/train one or more predictive models 34. The predictive models 34 are then used during a production phase to receive input 32, such as from a financial institution, to generate fraud analysis results 36.
  • Whether in the development phase or in the production phase, the input data 32 can be of many different types. Examples of such input data 32 are shown in FIG. 2. With reference to FIG. 2, a fraud detection model 100 can receive fraud information 102 and other input information 104, such as posting/transaction information, authorization information, cycle cut information, etc.
  • An example of fraud data could be the date of the first fraud as reported by a customer. For example, a customer may call a financial institution to indicate that one or more transactions that appeared on their credit card statement and represent a fraudulent use. An example of fraud is when a person steals a credit card number and uses it to purchase items.
  • The input fraud data can include several dates, such as the date on which fraud was first suspected to have occurred and a block date which is the date on which no further transactions should be authorized. A predictive model 100 can be trained to detect fraud (e.g., whether an entity has been compromised as shown at 110) within this account compromise period as early as possible.
  • The fraud data can be one record per account or multiple records per account. For example and as illustrated at 150 in FIG. 3, the data could have one record for each compromised account that identifies the beginning of the compromised period and the end of the compromised period. The compromised period may include both fraudulent as well as non-fraudulent transactions. This mixture is acceptable because the predictive model is trained not to detect fraud for a particular transaction, but whether an account should be deemed as having been compromised. Account-level fraud detection is a preferred approach over a transaction-based system because most financial institutions are more interested in whether an account has been compromised in order to stop the “bleeding” (e.g., reduce the amount of fraud) and not whether a particular transaction is fraudulent or not.
  • With reference back to FIG. 2, the system can also utilize payment information 106 and/or non-monetary information 108 to detect whether the account is in a fraud state. An example of payment information is the credit card payment information received on a monthly or other periodic basis. An example of non-monetary data is an address change, phone change, mother name change, or credit line change. Still further, another data feed could be postings. Postings are the process for the recording of debits and credits to individual cardholder account balances.
  • As illustrated at 200 in FIG. 4, non-monetary information 108 is provided regarding an entity 202 that has a relationship with a financial institution such as a bank 204. The entity 202 itself can be at different levels. These levels could be but are not limited to the card level 210, customer level 212, or account level 214. Using such information, the fraud detection process determines whether the entity 202 has been compromised (e.g., whether fraud has been detected).
  • FIG. 5 depicts at 250 that a system can be configured to produce a score 276 even in the absence of a current or new transaction on the account (e.g., independent of whether a transaction-type event has occurred), which is an aid in the efficient use of resources to manage fraud cases. This is in contrast to most of today's fraud detection systems which only produce a score when a transaction (typically authorization) comes through the system. This is not particularly useful for managing case queues efficiently, when the fact that no additional transaction occurred during a certain time period could represent additional information that would be very useful in actively managing fraud.
  • However, the system can also be configured such that at any time the system can generate via process 254 a fraud score 252. This includes generating a score 252 based upon receiving an incremental transaction 262. This account-level score indicates whether an account is in a compromised state or not. FIG. 6 illustrates at 300 that with scoring on demand, a different score (e.g., at “S2”) might be produced even though only the passage of time had occurred with no new transactional information being received (e.g., “S2” was generated despite a new transaction “T2” not occurring until later).
  • With reference back to FIG. 5, the trigger 260 is asynchronous with respect to an incremental transaction 262 (e.g., an authorization transaction 290, non-monetary transaction 292, payment transaction 294, etc.). Generated in response to a non-incremental type event 264, a trigger 260 provides an indicator that records should be retrieved in process 270 from a repository 272. The records are to be generated for scoring process 274 for determining a score 276 as to whether an entity (e.g., an account) has been compromised. The records can be “raw” data (e.g., the actual transaction data received over time) from which features can be derived on-the-fly for use by the predictive model. However it should be understood that the retrieved records could also include derived data.
  • The repository 272 is updated via process 280 with every transaction, but a score-on-demand trigger 260 for deriving features is independent of receipt of an incremental transaction 262 and instead is dependent upon receipt of non-incremental information, such as date and time information. Account information is provided in order to specify which account should be scored. Date and time information is provided because just the passage of time may result in a different score. The date and time information can be provided as part of the input by the requestor or can be obtained by other means, such as from a computer system clock. It should be understood that similar to the other processing flows described herein, the steps and the order of the processing steps described herein may be altered, modified and/or augmented and still achieve the desired outcome.
  • Different types of triggers may be involved in generating a score on demand, such as the process being triggered via a time/random trigger or a client event. An example of a time trigger would be to score one or more accounts at a periodic interval (e.g., every 48 hours) irrespective of whether an incremental transaction has occurred. A random trigger may also be used to randomly detect whether fraud has occurred with respect to one or more accounts.
  • For example the score for an account may be 900 but after only a passage of time and with no new transactions, the system might generate a different score such as 723. Such a situation might arise if a legitimate but highly suspicious transaction occurred. Since no transaction occurred over a period of time this lowers the likelihood of the account being in a compromised state. Previous systems would have problems in generating scores that are asynchronous with respect to a transaction occurrence because they generally store aggregated/derived data and not raw data and thus they lose relevant history associated with an account to perform asynchronous scoring. In previous systems, the aggregated/derived data is specifically suited for the scoring application and thus lacks flexibility to readily perform other types of scoring beyond its immediate purpose.
  • As another example the analysis process may have detected that three different credit cards were used at the same restaurant at about the same time and one of the credit cards has been determined as being in a compromised state. The scoring process can then be triggered for the other two credit card accounts and the scoring process will factor in the other two credit card accounts' information when generating a score for the third card. Accordingly whenever fraud is detected with respect to a first card, the scoring process can be triggered for any other card issued from the financial institution that was used at the same place or places as the first card.
  • As shown at 350 in FIG. 7, a client can define an event that would trigger scoring of an account as shown at “S2.” FIG. 8 depicts examples at 400 of client-defined events which could be an event wherein an account's password is changed as shown at 402 or a customer's car is stolen as shown at 404. A monitoring process 406 can determine when one of these triggers has occurred with respect to an account. These triggers indicate when data is to be extracted from a repository 272. For the different types of triggers, a financial institution can select whether all accounts are to be processed or only certain accounts.
  • The updating via process 280 of the repository 272 with incremental transaction information 262 occurs asynchronously with respect to a trigger 260 for generating via process 274 a score 276 on demand. The scoring can also occur based upon the receipt of a new transaction for an account.
  • It is noted that an incremental transaction indicates that a transaction has occurred that increases the amount of information with respect to an account (e.g., increases information resolution). An example of this type of transaction could be a purchase event wherein an authorization is requested for money to be subtracted from an account. A non-incremental event is one where no additional information is available relative to an entity other than that there has been a passage of time. A non-incremental event can then act as a trigger that is asynchronous with respect to whether an incremental transaction has occurred or not.
  • This time-passage-only type of trigger is useful to an account that may be considered on the cusp or edge (e.g., is the entity going to fall fraudulent or non-fraudulent). For example a cardholder's automobile is reported as stolen. In such situations a credit card or debit card may also have been stolen and usually large dollar amount transactions are recorded within the first couple of hours after the vehicle is stolen. The system can generate a trigger every fifteen minutes for the next three hours to score the account irrespective of whether a purchase transaction has occurred. The first scoring may have a higher score because it is closer in time to when the car was reported as stolen, but each subsequent scoring within the three hour window wherein no incremental transactions has occurred can see lower scores.
  • As another example a fraud analyst arrives at work in the morning with a queue of accounts to analyze. The question confronting the analyst is which account the analyst should consider first. The analyst sees that scoring on these accounts has not occurred since last night. The analyst then sends a request that these accounts should be scored again. For one or more of the accounts there may have been no additional transactions since the previous night but they may receive a different score just based upon the passage of time since the previous night. The new scoring may reorder the queue (which would alter the order of accounts the analyst is to process, such as by calling customers).
  • FIG. 9 depicts at 450 a system for storing information for use in fraud detection 480. The system of FIG. 9 stores the raw data 452 instead of derived feature information which is used in a typical current system. The typical current system's storage approach creates problems because there may be a need to view recent transactions in context of the account's or card's past history. Ideally, a significant portion of the raw historical transactions could be included for each score. However, for real-time systems, this has proven to have an unacceptable impact on throughput and response time. Alternative schemes involve saving only summarized information. While this does reduce the throughput, it also limits the types of variables and the level of detail available to the model.
  • In contrast, the system of FIG. 9 contains a repository of historical data. This is not aggregate or derived data but raw data 452. For example no summaries or averages of raw transactional data is stored in the repository 470. Raw data 452 is being processed and stored via process 460 and then retrieved (e.g., by fraud detection process 480) in order to determine whether an entity has been compromised. In other embodiments, a combination of raw data and derived data can be stored.
  • In the system, storage rules 454 specify how many generations of raw data 452 should be stored in the repository 470. This determination could include how many raw payment amounts should be stored. The determination of how many generations should be stored is based upon the type of transaction as well as the transaction fields. This may result in varying lengths of the fields being stored in the repository 470 as illustrated at 500 in FIG. 10. For example, the payment amounts for the last seven transactions may be stored in the repository. However for another type of information, only the previous five values need to be stored. Thus the length for one field might be seven generations in length, whereas for another field, only five generations in length might be stored in the repository. An advantage of storage of the raw data (in comparison with storage of aggregate or derived data) is that information that underlines the transaction is not lost due to process that may preserve only a top-level view of what has occurred. As an example of a storage rule, a storage rule can specify how many authorization amounts should be stored for an entity in the raw state (e.g., without any aggregation or other type of transformation into a derived variable).
  • The data can be stored in a circular list (e.g., a doubly linked list) for each field. They can comprise varying lengths in the circular lists for the data fields. A data field may have the previous three generations stored, whereas another data field may have the previous eight generations stored. The circular lists are stored in an indexed file. However it should be understood that other storage mechanisms may be utilized such as storage in a relational database.
  • It should be noted that the system can still operate even if not all of the generations for a particular data field has been stored. For example a relatively new card may have only enough raw data to store three generations of payment authorization amounts although the storage rules for this data field may allow storage of up to fifteen generations. A predictive model can still operate even though a particular data field does not have all of the generations specified by the storage rules.
  • The storage of raw data in the repository reflects a compromise between an ideal situation where all historical information that can be obtained for an entity is stored (that is used to make a prediction) versus the physical constraints of storage capacity and/or performance. In reaching that compromise it should be noted that a less than optimal situation might exist in determining what timeframe/number of generations should be stored for one or more data fields. It should also be noted that storage rules can use the number of generations (e.g., the previous four generations) and/or a particular timeframe (e.g., only the previous three weeks) in determining how much raw data for a particular data field should be stored. For situations where more generations, longer time frames are needed for a particular data field, a multi-resolution scheme can be used. In other words, the storage can store only every k events/transactions where k varies based on the recency of the transactions/events.
  • Storage rules dictate how far back in history should data be stored. The history can be at different levels, such as at the transaction level or at another level such as at an individual field level. As an illustration for an authorization the system may receive an authorization amount, a merchant identifier, and a date-time stamp. The system might decide that it does not need the same history for all these different pieces of data, so the system based upon the storage rules stores the past ten transaction amounts but only the previous five merchant identifiers. Thus the buffered lengths for the different data types could vary. Even the same field (e.g., the date-time stamp field) for two different transaction types may have different storage rules. For example for one type of transaction five generations of date-time stamps may be needed but for another type of transaction eight generations may need to be stored.
  • The system stores information about different entities and uses the information from multiple entities to determine whether a particular account has been compromised. An entity could be a card and another entity could be an account comprising multiple cards. Another entity could comprise ZIP code. A scoring process could be performed for each entity or combinations of entities. For example scoring could be performed for the card and a separate scoring process performed for the account comprising multiple cards. Still further a scoring process could be done for a ZIP code location (e.g., generating a fraud score for a ZIP location for all of the credit card transactions that have occurred within a ZIP location).
  • The multi-entity repository may or may not have a hierarchical structure. A hierarchy could be multiple cards being associated with an account and another example could be multiple terminals with a single merchant. The system could look at all those hierarchies at once. In this manner by examining different entities within a hierarchy, fraud at different levels can be examined at the same time. For example a bank can determine whether fraud is localized only for a particular card or is more pervasive and extends to the merchant or to the customer's other financial instruments such as the customer's checking account.
  • Signatures can be used within the system in order to help store detailed, unaltered history of the account/entity. The signatures provide a complete picture of the account, allowing on-demand scoring, and not just transaction-triggered scoring. The signature allows real-time use of variables which depend upon detailed information for a number of previous transactions, for example, distances (e.g., Mahalanobis distances) between recent and past transactions.
  • Signatures may look different for one person versus another person. For example for a particular type of information, fifteen generations of information might be stored for a first person whereas only six generations of the same type of information for a second person might be stored. This could occur, for example, if the first person utilizes their card many more times per month than the second person.
  • Signature records can be retrieved for one or more entities depending upon which entities need to be scored as well as which signature records are needed for scoring a particular entity. For example a scoring process may be configured to score a credit card holder's account only by utilizing the one or more signature records associated with that credit card holder. However another scoring process could be configured to score a credit card holder's account based not only upon that entity's signature records but also based upon one or more other entities' signature records (e.g., a merchant or terminal ID signature record).
  • FIG. 11 shows at 550 that the determination of the number of generations (e.g., the relevant time periods) to store for a particular field for a type of transaction can be based upon statistical analysis 560. Statistical analysis 560 can analyze test raw data 562 and determine how much history (e.g., an optimal amount or approximate thereto) of raw data is needed for the application to perform well. For example a history of three months can be selected for a particular field for a particular transaction type. Analysis can be performed on the historical data to determine whether a significant change had occurred in the data the previous week versus over the previous three months. For a particular field the previous three months of raw data might be needed to help capture and explain the variability of that field whereas for another field only the past week might be needed to be captured in order to explain the variability. Statistical analysis techniques that help analyze the variability can include using mean, standard deviations, skewness, statistical distances, correlation between fields, etc. The analysis techniques can also be more sophisticated by creating models that examine variability.
  • FIG. 12 depicts at 600 an approach to determine storage rules for a system. Statistical analysis 610 is performed upon the entire test raw data set 612, and analysis results 614 are generated thereby. Statistical analysis 620 is performed upon a candidate subset 622 of test raw data (e.g., only the previous two weeks of raw data instead of the entire six months of data). Analysis results 624 from the candidate subset 622 are compared via process 630 with the results generated from the full set. If the difference between the two sets of results is acceptable as determined at 640, then the storage rule is generated and stored at 650 with the time period information associated with the candidate subset. If it is not acceptable, then another candidate subset can be examined 660.
  • As shown in FIG. 13, the analysis techniques can be supplemented based upon any experience that a person has with respect to one or more data fields. As an illustration a person can recognize from experience that storage of more then six months for a particular data field is not needed in order to provide any greater predictive capability. As another illustration and as shown at 670, a domain expert can provide an initial estimate as to what the longest period of time for the data or a data field should be and the domain expert could also indicate an initial estimate for what the expert considers to be the number of generations that should be stored in the raw data repository. For example, an expert based upon his or her experience believes that only three months of information is needed for a particular data field. The expert in this situation can indicate that the statistical analysis technique or techniques should evaluate six months of data for that data field and that the techniques should evaluate whether a good or optimal point in time might be the storage of three months of data.
  • FIG. 14 illustrates that the storage of information in its raw form makes the system much less application-specific. FIG. 14 shows that in addition to fraud detection 480, information in the raw data repository 470 can also be used by other applications, such as by a loan risk analysis application 700 or an application 710 that examines the revenue expected to be generated from this account holder over a prolonged period of time. In this way a financial institution only has to provide the information to the analysis system once instead of having to provide the same information multiple times for each of the different applications.
  • The data that is retrieved from a data store for use in an application such as fraud detection may have missing data values. With reference to FIG. 15, a system 750 can be configured that has missing value imputation processing capability 760. Process 760 can fill in values that are missing from a retrieved data set 762.
  • Missing values can occur because in practice an entity (e.g., a financial institution) supplying the raw data may not have all of the information regarding the transaction. As an illustration, one or more data items associated with a point-of-sale transaction might be missing.
  • The missing value imputation process 760 attempts to determine the missing value(s) at 764. Current approaches typically use a most common value approach (e.g., mean, mode, median) in place of a missing value. In contrast, the system of FIG. 15 uses a closed form equation 770 to determine what value (e.g., optimal value) with respect to a target should be used for a missing value. The optimal value provides more information with respect to whether fraud has occurred or not. It should be noted that this approach can be utilized for many different applications other than fraud detection, such as determining credit worthiness for a loan applicant. If the system is configured with a raw data repository, the optimal values can be determined for different applications because the raw data is stored in the repository.
  • In a production mode, missing values can also occur and thus a closed form equation or lookup table (whose values are based upon the closed form equation) can be used to supply missing values.
  • The system can use an approach wherein irrespective (e.g., independent) of the feature an equation is used to calculate the missing value. For example and as illustrated in FIG. 16, if the transaction amount is missing, then a closed form equation is used in the model building phase 780 to determine the missing transaction amount value for use in building model 782. In the production phase a lookup table 792 is created via process 790 and used to supply the missing transaction amount value. It should be understood that any value type can be supplied, such as continuous values (e.g., a numeric transaction amount).
  • The missing value determination process uses the tag information that accompanies the missing value in order to determine the missing value. In a fraud detection application, the tag information would indicate whether there was fraud or no fraud associated with the input data.
  • In the model construction backend phase 780, the values that are supplied for the missing values are used to help train or test one or more models 782 that are under construction. In the production phase, the values supplied for the missing values are used as part of the input layer to the predictive model for the application at hand.
  • With reference to FIG. 17, a closed form equation 770 is generated via process 800 for a data feature based upon historical data by using an optimality criterion involving the tag information. The correlation can be examined via a linear or nonlinear relationship. FIG. 18 provides at 850 an illustration wherein if there are six values and G is assigned a value of one and B is assigned a value of zero, then if one or more values are missing from the input data set, then the optimality criterion could be used for determining what value of “x” would maximize the correlation with respect to the tag information.
  • Traditional methods of creating a payment-card fraud detection system involve training a neural network model. In general, one or more distinct models are trained independently using an error function whose result is evaluated on each transaction. Occasionally, there are simple hierarchies of models where a second model can be trained on transactions deemed risky by an initial model. By treating all transactions independently, this methodology does not address the fact that fraud occurs at an account level. For instance, early transactions in a fraud episode are much more important than later transactions, since identifying fraud early-on implies preventing more substantial fraud losses. These training methods are also lacking some means of tying together the concomitant training of a number of different networks.
  • FIG. 19 depicts a training approach which addresses fraud on an account-level fashion, thereby allowing fraud-level scores to be generated independent of the existence (or lack thereof) of transactions. Stated in other words, the approach provides a holistic view of the account/customer and identifies when an account is in a compromised state, as opposed to merely detecting some fraudulent transactions. This can provide value to card issuers as account-level fraud (e.g., account takeover, identity theft) has ramped up in the recent past, as compared to traditional lost/stolen card fraud. Moreover, a family of models can be generated simultaneously that optimally balance the additional benefit due to the added complexity and the added computational/operational cost.
  • With reference to FIG. 19, training data is received at process 900 for training a predictive model. For the first iteration, a model can be trained with the entire data set and thus not partitioned by process 900. The trained model then is scored at process 902 and evaluated at process 904. If the evaluated trained model has performed satisfactorily as determined at 906, then the model as defined through the training is made available at 908.
  • However if through the evaluation process 904, the model has not performed satisfactorily, then the training data set is partitioned by the generator process block 900. The generator process block 900 determines how the training data should be split and modeled by separate and distinct predictive models. FIG. 20 illustrates at 950 a partitioning that could occur via the generator process block.
  • With reference to FIG. 20, a data set 952 (e.g., an initial data set) is partitioned into multiple data subsets 954 (e.g., data subset A and data subset B). The partitioning can be performed such that the combination of data subset A and data subset B would be the initial data set. If another iteration is required, then further partitioning can be performed, such as generating data subsets C, D and if needed E, and F (as shown at 956). It should be understood that if needed these generated subsets can be further partitioned, such as partitioning F into data subsets G, H, and I.
  • The training could be performed in many different ways, such as the approach depicted at 1000 in FIG. 21. In this approach, a mathematical model is constructed iteratively by training and combining multiple, potentially heterogeneous, learning machines. The individual “learners” are trained with emphasis on different and overlapping regions of interest. These regions, which can be constantly evolving, are determined by a partition generator.
  • First, an initial model is trained at 1030 using exemplars that are partitioned from the entire training space. A data set 1010 is partitioned at 1020 in accordance with partitioning criteria 1012. The partitioning criteria 1012 is based upon minimization of a ranking violations metric. An objective function based upon minimization of a ranking violations metric is manipulated so as to minimize the area under the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) curve. An ROC is a graph showing how the false rejection rate versus true rejection rate vary (e.g., it examines the percentage of good versus the percentage of bad). The area under the curve is what is to be maximized.
  • A learning machine that yields distinctive rankings for each exemplar, such as a neural network, a support vector machine, a classification tree, or a Bayesian network, can be used. A partition generator then uses a selection function to be applied on the training exemplars, in order to direct attention to a subset of accounts and transactions that could improve the decision performance in the operational region of interest. The selected function can be shaped so as to further emphasize the region of interest. One or more learning machines are then trained and combined to form a final model as explained below.
  • At each iteration, one or multiple learning machines of various types, as well as one or multiple instances of each type of learning machine with different initial conditions are trained with emphasis on potentially different subsets of exemplars. Then the generator searches through possible transformations on the resulting machines and selects at 1040 the one that performs best for account-level fraud detection when combined with the previously selected models and the selected models are weighted at 1050.
  • If the newly selected learning machine did not provide additional benefit, it is discarded and the training process is restarted. After a new learner is selected, the generator directs its attention to the selection of a different subset of exemplars. The degree of attention/emphasis to each exemplar is determined by how the exemplar assists in or hurts the detection of the account being in a fraudulent state as compared to the new learning machine being disabled (i.e., not included in the overall system). As an illustration, a weight of zero or one can be assigned to each exemplar and thus form a “hard” region. As another illustration, a continuous range of weights can be used (e.g., all real values between 0 and 1) to create a “soft” region which could avoid training instabilities. The entire system including the individual “learners” as well as their corresponding regions of interest evolves and changes with each iteration.
  • With respect to the partitioning process 1020, a ranking violations metric can take into account that a model should produce scores that result in non-fraudulent accounts or transactions being ranked lower than a fraud accounts or transaction. For example FIG. 22 shows at 1100 example scoring results. The model(s) that generated the scores on the left side of the table contain multiple ranking violations. The model(s) that generated the scores on the right side of the table signify an improvement in predictive capability because the non-fraudulent accounts or transactions are ranked lower than fraud accounts or transactions.
  • FIGS. 23-25 provide another example for training a model. With reference to FIG. 23, the entire set of training data is retrieved at 1200. If needed, one from a set of candidate predictive models 1212 (e.g., a neural network model, decision tree model, linear algorithm model, etc.) are selected for training. At 1220, a predictive model is trained with the training data. The trained one or more predictive models are scored and evaluated at 1230.
  • The evaluation can be based on a cost/error function. Some examples are the area under the ROC curve, $ savings, etc. The evaluation can be done at the account level. For example, an evaluation can examine the extent to which non-fraudulent accounts were ranked higher than fraudulent accounts and to what degree. However it should be understood that other levels could be used, such as having the ranking at the observation/transaction level, at the business problem level, etc.
  • A test for convergence is performed at 1240. If there is convergence, then the model is considered defined (e.g., the parameters of the one or more predictive models are fixed) at 1242. However if convergence has not occurred, then processing continues on FIG. 24 so that the generator process can determine at 1250 how to split one or more data sets in order to train one or more new predictive models.
  • The generator process determines whether the training data set 1252 should be split and modeled by separate and distinct predictive models. This allows for an automatic determination as to whether the entire training data set should be used or whether it is better to use subsets of the data for the training.
  • For example the generator process can determine which data subset(s) (e.g., 1254, 1256) have been most problematic in being trained. A new predictive model will be trained to focus upon that problematic data set. One way to perform this is for the generator to assign greater importance to the problematic data and lesser importance to the data that can be adequately explained with the other predictive models that have already been trained. The weighting of importance for data subsets is done at the account level.
  • A second predictive model is selected at 1260 from candidate predictive models 1212 and trained at 1270. The second model and the first model are combined at 1280, and evaluation of the combined models' results 1292 occurs at 1290. If the combined models do converge as determined at 1300, then the combined models are provided as output at 1302. If the combined models do not converge as determined at 1300, then the data is further split as shown in FIG. 25 so that another model can be trained.
  • With reference to FIG. 25, the generator process determines at 1306 how to split one or more data sets in order to train one or more new predictive models. For example, the generator process can determine whether the training data set 1256 should be split and modeled by separate and distinct predictive models. More specifically, the generator process can determine which data subset(s) (e.g., 1308, 1310) have been most problematic in being trained, and a new predictive model will be trained to focus upon that problematic data set. One way to perform this is for the generator to assign greater importance to the problematic data and lesser importance to the data that can be adequately explained with the other predictive models that have already been trained. The weighting of importance for data subsets is done at the account level.
  • A third predictive model is selected at 1312 from candidate predictive models 1212 and trained at 1320. The third model and the other models are combined at 1330, and evaluation of the combined models' results 1342 occurs at 1340. If the combined models do converge as determined at 1350, then the combined models are provided as output at 1360. If the combined models do not converge as determined at 1350, then the data is further split.
  • For performing evaluations in this training approach, the system can examine how many ranking violations have occurred. The evaluation also examines whether there is any improvement (e.g., decrease) in the number of ranking violations from the previous iteration. The convergence decision step determines whether the number of ranking violations is at an acceptable level. If it is, then the defined models are made available for any subsequent further model development or are made available for the production phase. However if the number of ranking violations is not at an acceptable level, then further partitioning occurs at the partition process block.
  • It should be noted that many different types of predictive models may be utilized as candidate predictive models, such as decision trees, neural networks, linear predictive models, etc. Accordingly the resultant model may be a single predictive model and/or multiple predictive models that have been combined. Moreover combined predictive models resulting from the training sessions can be homogenous or heterogeneous. As an illustration of a homogenous combined set of predictive models, two or more neural networks can be combined from the training sessions. As an illustration of a heterogeneous combined set of predictive models, a neural network model can be combined with a decision tree model or as another illustration multiple genetic algorithm models can be combined with one or more decision tree models as well as with one or more linear regression models. During training, the evaluation block assesses the performance of the combined models. The models are placed in parallel and their outputs are combined.
  • A predictive system can be configured to generate reason codes which aid in understanding the scores. Current methodology for producing reason codes for explaining the scores is not very useful, as it typically identifies variables that are similar in nature as the top three reason codes. This does not provide valuable insight into why a particular item scored high. This becomes important as the industry moves away from transaction-level scores for fraud detection to account-level scores identifying the account's compromise. Due to the more complex underlying phenomena, more refined and meaningful reason codes become tantamount.
  • FIG. 26 depicts a reason code determination process 1430 that is used to create reason codes 1440 for a scoring system/predictive model 1410. It should be understood that reason codes can be used for other applications other than fraud detection. The reason code determination process 1430 can be configured having reason code technology that is based on risk factors/groups rather than individual variables used in the models. The reason codes 1440 for a scoring system are to provide insight to end users with respect to the score generated by the predictive model 1440 (e.g., the fraud analysis results/scores 1420). It provides guidance in reviewing the scoring entity and making appropriate actions and decisions. In case of fraud detection models, the reason codes provide directions for the initial investigations/review of suspect cases.
  • The process 1430 can provide statistically-sound explanations of the results 1420 (e.g., score) from a scoring system/predictive model 1410 that is analyzing certain input data 1400. Also, the explanations are factor based and can be used within a scoring system such as to satisfy requirements for credit scoring models under regulation B.
  • FIG. 27 illustrates how reason codes can be built. Instead of using individual input variables as reasons, first reason factors are generated via process 1450 by grouping variables that have similar concept. Analytic techniques are used to generate these reason factors. The reason factors could then be reviewed and refined by domain experts. Once the reason factors are formed, the importance of reason factors to the score can be constructed. The reason codes can be generated by rank ordering the “importance” of each reason factor. Finally, the performance of the reason codes is evaluated. Based on the results, one can also revise the reason generator by iterating the process. The generated reasons are provided as reason configuration data 1460 to a reason determination process 1430 for use in the scoring/predicting process.
  • FIG. 28 illustrates creation of reason codes. For generation of reason factors via process 1500, individual variables are not used as reasons in order to avoid top reasons providing the same information. Instead, the system first groups variables that are correlated and with similar concept into different reason factors. As an illustration, the variables that relate to the time when the transaction occurred can be grouped separately from variables that do not relate to that. Many statistical techniques can be used to group the variables. Each variable group (e.g., a reason factor) can represent a reason code.
  • Principal Component Analysis (PCA) techniques can be used in the reason factor generation step in order to generate factors or groups that are orthogonal with respect to each other. Such technique is implemented in SAS PROC VARCLUS which is available from SAS Institute located in Cary, N.C. There are many different configurations to generate the variable grouping and they are available as options in PROC VARCLUS. For example, the number of reason factors can be controlled by specifying the number of variable clusters to be created. The reason factors generated by the PCA are then manually reviewed and refined at 1510.
  • Manual review and refinement of the reason factors can be performed in many ways. For example, this could include sanity checking the variable grouping as well as creating user-friendly description for each variable factor. The groupings may be revised/refined based on domain expertise and previous results, and the configuration file is prepared for the reason code generator step.
  • A reason code generator is created at 1520 by constructing and measuring the importance for each reason factor to the score. The importance can be defined in many ways. It can be (1) the strength of the reason factor to explain the current score; (2) the strength of the reason factor to make the score high; etc. The importance of these reason factors are then rank-ordered. The top most important factors are reported as the score reasons. The number of reasons will be based on the business needs.
  • With reference to FIG. 29, the importance of each reason factor to the score could be measured by a tree model at 1540. These tree models are constructed at 1550 to extract the correlations between the values of the variables in the given reason factor and the score, and they can be built at 1560 using a SAS Enterprise Miner tree procedure/SAS PROC ARBORETUM available from SAS Institute located in Cary, N.C. By rank ordering the estimated scores for the tree models, the top corresponding reason factors are then selected as the reason codes
  • With reference back to FIG. 28, the performance of the reason code is then analyzed at 1530. The general performance of the reason code generator is reviewed. Other items used in analyzing the performance of the reason code could include:
      • frequency of the reason code
      • most common reasons/combination of reasons
      • frequency of reason code by score range
      • manual review of cases to check the validity of the reason codes
      • case reports to be generated for review
      • based on the result, one may revise the reason factors grouping and renew the reason code generation step
  • While examples have been used to disclose the invention, including the best mode, and also to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention, the patentable scope of the invention is defined by claims, and may include other examples that occur to those skilled in the art.
  • For example, the systems and methods disclosed herein may be used for many different purposes. Because the repository stores raw data (as opposed to derived or imputed information), different types of analysis other than credit card fraud detection can be performed. These additional analyses could include using the same data that is stored in the repository for credit card analysis to also be utilized for detection of merchant fraud or for some other application. Derived or imputed information from raw data does not generalize well from one application (e.g., cardholder account fraud prediction) to a different application (e.g., merchant fraud prediction).
  • FIGS. 30 and 31 depict that a view selector module 1600 can be provided that allows a user or computer program to select which entity (e.g., a particular merchant) or type of entity (e.g., all merchants) upon which they would like fraud analysis to be performed. For example a user or a computer application can shift the view from whether a cardholder account has been compromised to whether fraud has occurred at one or more merchants. The raw data that is used to predict whether fraud has occurred with respect to a cardholders account can also be utilized to predict whether fraud has occurred at a merchant location.
  • Other types of analysis can also be performed because the data is stored in its raw form, such as merchant attrition. Merchant attrition is when an institution loses merchants for one or more reasons. A merchant attrition score is an indicator of how likely a relationship between a merchant and an institution will be severed, such as due to bankruptcy of the merchant or the merchant porting its account to another institution (e.g., to receive more favorable terms for its account). To determine a merchant attrition score, the raw data in the repository 272 that can be used for fraud scoring can also be used in combination with other data to calculate merchant attrition scores. The other data could include any data (raw or derived) that would indicate merchant attrition. Such data could include the fee structure charged by the institution to handle the merchant's account, how timely payments are provided by the merchant on the account, etc. Accordingly in addition to an entity view selector, a system can be configured with a selector 1610 that selects what type of analysis should be performed.
  • FIG. 32 depicts the storage of raw data (e.g., 1702, 1712, 1722) at or from different institutions (1700, 1710, 1720) which provides for an expanded, more comprehensive and quicker type of analysis to occur. Because each institution is not storing its information as a set of derived or calculated set of values that are typically application-specific, the raw data from each of these repositories can be retrieved and used together in order to provide a more robust predictive capability. As shown in FIG. 32, data is collected from the repositories (1702, 1712, 1722) at 1730. A view selector 1740 could be used as described above for selecting a particular entity type or analysis type for processing. Predictive model(s) at 1750 generate the predictions, such as an entity score 1760. Based upon the view selection, the score can be at multiple different levels (e.g., fraud scoring at the card holder level, fraud scoring at the merchant level, merchant attrition score, bankruptcy prediction scoring, etc.)
  • Even if the institutions utilized different storage rules (1704, 1714, 1724) (e.g., different time periods for the same data fields), the system can still utilize this data from the different institutions (1700, 1710, 1720) because raw data is being stored. This can be helpful if the raw data repositories are in a distributed environment, such as at different sites.
  • The repositories may be at different sites because of a number of reasons. A reason may be that an institution would like to have its repository at one of its locations; or different third-party analysis companies may have the repositories on behalf of their respective institutions. For example a third-party analysis company receives data from a first institution (e.g., a Visa institution) and applies its storage rules when storing information for the first institution while a different third-party analysis company receives data from a different institution (e.g., a MasterCard institution) and applies its storage rules when storing information for the other institution. Although different third-party analysis companies with their unique storage rules have stored the data from different institutions, the raw data from the different repositories can still be collected and used together in order to perform predictions.
  • As an illustration, if there is a significant increase in the amount of fraud detected at a Merchant's location, than the raw data in the repository associated with that merchant can be retrieved from the repository in order to determine whether fraud can be detected for other credit card accounts that have purchased goods or services at that merchant's location. (Currently it takes a prolonged period of time for detecting whether a merchant is acting fraudulently with respect to credit cards that had been used at the merchant's location.) For example the fraud rate at the merchant's location could be 0.1% but now after evaluating other credit cards from different institutions that have been utilized at the merchant's location, the fraud rate is now 10%. By analyzing through the predictive model account activities that occur at the merchant's location, a more realistic score can be generated for the merchant.
  • Still further a merchant's fraud score can be used to determine whether a credit card has been compromised. Such processing can entail analyzing the raw data associated with the credit cards utilized at a merchant's location to generate a score for the merchant and then using that score to analyze an account whose credit card had recently been used at the merchant's location.
  • As another example of the wide scope of the systems and methods disclosed herein, FIGS. 33 and 34 show at 1800 a system that integrates different aspects disclosed herein. In the system of FIGS. 33 and 34, a predictive model is built using development data 1802. Development data 1802 (e.g., cycle cut data, authorizations data, payment data, non-monetary data, etc.) is used to help determine at 1804 an account compromise period that is at which point in time was the account in a compromised state up until the point in time when the account was actually blocked. After the account is blocked, the customer is issued a new card. The development data 1802 is stored in the raw data repository 1810 which has a manager 1812 that helps manage the raw data repository 1810, such as handling the updating of the raw data repository 1810 with new development data.
  • The raw data from the repository 1810 could also be utilized to create at 1820 static behavior tables. The data in the static behavior tables provides a global picture which is the same for a period of time (e.g., static or does not change dramatically over a period of time). These types of variables are useful in identifying the occurrence of fraud. An example of such variables include risk with respect to a geographical area. The information created for these tables do not have to be changed in production, whereas the transaction information in the repository do change once in production to reflect the transaction that is occurring while the system is in production.
  • Signature records are retrieved from the repository 1810 and features from the raw data are derived at. For example, a signature is an account-level compilation of historic data of all transaction types. Signatures help a model to recognize behavior change (e.g., to detect a trend and deviation from a trend). There is one record stored for each account. Length of history of each type of data may vary. Signature data is updated with every new transaction. The features are also derived based upon the behavior tables.
  • Because the retrieved data can comprise thousands of records the system analyzes the retrieved data in order to distill it down to a more manageable size by deriving features on-the-fly (in RAM) associated with the retrieved data.
  • For the optimal feature transformations process 1840, a standard prediction model transformation process as currently available can be used to reduce the amount of data that will be used as input to the predictive model. The optimal missing value imputation process 1850 fills in values that are missing from the retrieved data set. Missing values can occur because in practice the entity (e.g., a financial institution) supplying the raw data may not be able to provide all of the information regarding the transaction. As an illustration, one or more data items associated with a point-of-sale transaction might be missing. The missing value imputation process block determines the optimal missing value.
  • The automated feature reduction process 1860 eliminates unstable features as well as other items such as features with similar content and features with minimum information content. As an illustration, this process could eliminate such unstable features that, while they may be informative, change too dramatically between data sets. Features with similar content may also be eliminated because while they may be informative when viewed in isolation are providing duplicate information (e.g., highly collinear) and thus their removal from the input data set does not significantly diminish the amount of information contained in the input data set. Contrariwise the process preserves the features that provide the most amount of information. Accordingly, this process reduces the number of variables such that the more significant variables are used for training. The generated reduced feature data set is provided as input to the model generation process.
  • In the model generation process, a predictive model is trained with training data which in this example is the data provided by the automated feature reduction process 1860. In general, the predictive models are trained using error/cost measures. In this example, all accounts are scored using all networks during model building. Resulting errors are used by the generator process 1870 to intelligently rearrange the segments and retrain the models. In other words, the generator process 1870 determines whether the training data should be split and modeled by separate and distinct predictive models. This allows an automatic determination as to whether the entire training data set should be used or whether it is better to use subsets of the data for the training.
  • The trained one or more predictive models are scored at process 1880. The scores are then evaluated at process 1890. A test for convergence is performed at 1990. If there is convergence, then the model is considered defined (e.g., the parameters of the one or more predictive models are fixed). However if convergence has not occurred, then processing returns to the generator process block 1870 in order to determine how to split one or more data sets in order to train one or more new predictive models. For example the generator process 1870 determines which data subset(s) have been most problematic in being trained. A new predictive model is trained to focus only upon that problematic data set.
  • The result of the training process is that a complete predictive model has been defined (e.g., the parameters are fixed). The scoring operation that is performed at 1910 after the model definition is done for the purposes of the reason code generator 1920. The reason code generator 1920 uses the scores generated by the scoring process 1910. The reason code generator process 1920 examines the account scores and is configured to provide one or more reasons for why an account received a particular score. After reason codes have been generated, an evaluation 1930 is performed again for the account scores. At this point processing could loop back to process 1830 to derive features from raw data and the behavior tables; or after evaluation of the reason code generation process by the evaluation process, then the development phase of the predictive model can be deemed completed.
  • For the production phase, the generated model and reason codes can be used to score accounts and provide reasons for those scores. As shown at 1950 and 1952, the scoring process can be triggered by receipt of a new transaction or upon demand, such as based upon a random trigger. The trigger would signal that relevant records from the raw data repository 1810 should be retrieved and processed (e.g., missing value imputation processing, etc.). The resultant data would be the input to the trained model in order to generate scores and reason codes.
  • It is noted that the systems and methods may be implemented on various types of computer architectures, such as for example on a single general purpose computer or workstation, or on a networked system, or in a client-server configuration, or in an application service provider configuration.
  • It is further noted that the systems and methods may include data signals conveyed via networks (e.g., local area network, wide area network, internet, etc.), fiber optic medium, carrier waves, wireless networks, etc. for communication with one or more data processing devices. The data signals can carry any or all of the data disclosed herein that is provided to or from a device.
  • Additionally, the methods and systems described herein may be implemented on many different types of processing devices by program code comprising program instructions that are executable by the device processing subsystem. The software program instructions may include source code, object code, machine code, or any other stored data that is operable to cause a processing system to perform methods described herein. Other implementations may also be used, however, such as firmware or even appropriately designed hardware configured to carry out the methods and systems described herein.
  • The systems' and methods' data (e.g., associations, mappings, etc.) may be stored and implemented in one or more different types of computer-implemented ways, such as different types of storage devices and programming constructs (e.g., data stores, RAM, ROM, Flash memory, flat files, databases, programming data structures, programming variables, IF-THEN (or similar type) statement constructs, etc.). It is noted that data structures describe formats for use in organizing and storing data in databases, programs, memory, or other computer-readable media for use by a computer program.
  • The systems and methods may be provided on many different types of computer-readable media including computer storage mechanisms (e.g., CD-ROM, diskette, RAM, flash memory, computer's hard drive, etc.) that contain instructions for use in execution by a processor to perform the methods' operations and implement the systems described herein.
  • The computer components, software modules, functions, data stores and data structures described herein may be connected directly or indirectly to each other in order to allow the flow of data needed for their operations. It is also noted that a module or processor includes but is not limited to a unit of code that performs a software operation, and can be implemented for example as a subroutine unit of code, or as a software function unit of code, or as an object (as in an object-oriented paradigm), or as an applet, or in a computer script language, or as another type of computer code. The software components and/or functionality may be located on a single computer or distributed across multiple computers depending upon the situation at hand.
  • It should be understood that as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “a,” “an,” and “the” includes plural reference unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Also, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meaning of “in” includes “in” and “on” unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Finally, as used in the description herein and throughout the claims that follow, the meanings of “and” and “or” include both the conjunctive and disjunctive and may be used interchangeably unless the context expressly dictates otherwise; the phrase “exclusive or” may be used to indicate situation where only the disjunctive meaning may apply.

Claims (15)

  1. 1. A computer-implemented fraud scoring system comprising:
    raw data repository on a computer-readable storage media for storing raw data related to financial transactions;
    wherein the stored raw data are unprocessed financial transaction data records resulting from the financial transactions;
    wherein the stored raw data are data associated with multiple different types of entities;
    a view selector for executing on a computer system and for selecting an entity or type of entity;
    wherein the raw data associated with the selected entity of type of entity is used by a fraud scoring system for determining fraud scores for the selected entity or type of entity.
  2. 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the view selector is configured for use by a user or computer program to select which entity or type of entity upon which fraud analysis is to be performed.
  3. 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the multiple different types of entities include a merchant entity type, card entity type, and geographical entity type.
  4. 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the view selector is configured for use by a user or a computer application to shift view from a first type of entity to a different type of entity.
  5. 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the first type of entity is a cardholder account;
    wherein the different type of entity is a merchant.
  6. 6. The system of claim 4, wherein the shifting of the view from the first type of entity to the different type of entity shifts the fraud analysis from being performed upon the first type of entity to being performed upon the different type of entity.
  7. 7. The system of claim 6, wherein the stored raw data that is used to predict whether fraud has occurred with respect to the first type of entity is used to predict whether fraud has occurred with respect to the different type of entity.
  8. 8. The system of claim 6, wherein the first type of entity is a cardholder account;
    wherein the different type of entity is a merchant;
    wherein the stored raw data that is used to predict whether fraud has occurred with respect to the cardholder account is used to predict whether fraud has occurred with respect to the merchant.
  9. 9. The system of claim 8, wherein the stored raw data that is used to predict whether fraud has occurred with respect to the merchant is used to determine a merchant attrition score.
  10. 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the merchant attrition score is an indicator of how likely a relationship between a merchant and the merchant's associated institution is to be severed.
  11. 11. The system of claim 1, wherein source of the raw data is different financial institutions.
  12. 12. The system of claim 1, wherein the view selector facilitates fraud indicative scores to be generated by the fraud scoring system at multiple different levels.
  13. 13. The system of claim 12, wherein the fraud indicative scores that are generated at the multiple different levels include generating fraud indicative scores at a card holder scoring level, merchant scoring level, merchant attrition scoring level, or at a bankruptcy prediction scoring level.
  14. 14. The system of claim 1, wherein the stored raw data include incremental transaction data, said system further comprising:
    first scoring software instructions, contained within the fraud scoring system on a computer-readable media, for generating a first score based upon data regarding a new incremental transaction with respect to an entity;
    whereby, subsequent to the generation of the first score, a trigger is received that was generated independent of whether an incremental transaction has occurred or not;
    second scoring software instructions, contained within the fraud scoring system on a computer-readable media, for generating in response to the generated trigger a second score for the entity based upon stored past incremental transaction data and upon non-incremental transaction data;
    wherein the generated second score is indicative of whether fraud has occurred or not;
    whereby the second score is used to determine whether a fraud handling action is to be performed upon the entity.
  15. 15. A computer-implemented fraud scoring method comprising:
    storing raw data related to financial transactions in a computer-readable raw data repository;
    wherein the stored raw data are unprocessed financial transaction data records resulting from the financial transactions;
    wherein the stored raw data are data associated with multiple different types of entities;
    selecting through a view selector software module an entity or type of entity;
    wherein the raw data associated with the selected entity of type of entity is used by a fraud scoring system for determining fraud scores for the selected entity or type of entity;
    wherein the selecting is performed using a data processor.
US12418186 2006-03-24 2009-04-03 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems Abandoned US20090192855A1 (en)

Priority Applications (3)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US78603806 true 2006-03-24 2006-03-24
US11691277 US7912773B1 (en) 2006-03-24 2007-03-26 Computer-implemented data storage systems and methods for use with predictive model systems
US12418186 US20090192855A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2009-04-03 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US12418186 US20090192855A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2009-04-03 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US13905524 US20130339218A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2013-05-30 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems and Methods for Use with Predictive Model Systems

Related Parent Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US11691277 Division US7912773B1 (en) 2006-03-24 2007-03-26 Computer-implemented data storage systems and methods for use with predictive model systems

Related Child Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US13905524 Continuation US20130339218A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2013-05-30 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems and Methods for Use with Predictive Model Systems

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
US20090192855A1 true true US20090192855A1 (en) 2009-07-30

Family

ID=43741857

Family Applications (4)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US11691277 Active 2028-08-08 US7912773B1 (en) 2006-03-24 2007-03-26 Computer-implemented data storage systems and methods for use with predictive model systems
US12418186 Abandoned US20090192855A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2009-04-03 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US12418174 Abandoned US20090192957A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2009-04-03 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US13905524 Abandoned US20130339218A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2013-05-30 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems and Methods for Use with Predictive Model Systems

Family Applications Before (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US11691277 Active 2028-08-08 US7912773B1 (en) 2006-03-24 2007-03-26 Computer-implemented data storage systems and methods for use with predictive model systems

Family Applications After (2)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
US12418174 Abandoned US20090192957A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2009-04-03 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US13905524 Abandoned US20130339218A1 (en) 2006-03-24 2013-05-30 Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems and Methods for Use with Predictive Model Systems

Country Status (1)

Country Link
US (4) US7912773B1 (en)

Cited By (11)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20090177598A1 (en) * 2008-01-08 2009-07-09 General Electric Company Method for building predictive models with incomplete data
US20090192957A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2009-07-30 Revathi Subramanian Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US8015133B1 (en) * 2007-02-20 2011-09-06 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented modeling systems and methods for analyzing and predicting computer network intrusions
US8498931B2 (en) 2006-01-10 2013-07-30 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods
US8515862B2 (en) 2008-05-29 2013-08-20 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented systems and methods for integrated model validation for compliance and credit risk
US20130253965A1 (en) * 2012-03-21 2013-09-26 Roshin Joseph Time dependent transaction queue
GB2512340A (en) * 2013-03-27 2014-10-01 Riskpointer Oy Electronic arrangement and related method for automated fraud prevention in connection with digital transactions
US20150161611A1 (en) * 2013-12-10 2015-06-11 Sas Institute Inc. Systems and Methods for Self-Similarity Measure
US20150262184A1 (en) * 2014-03-12 2015-09-17 Microsoft Corporation Two stage risk model building and evaluation
US20160012544A1 (en) * 2014-05-28 2016-01-14 Sridevi Ramaswamy Insurance claim validation and anomaly detection based on modus operandi analysis
US9251203B2 (en) 2012-12-22 2016-02-02 Mmodal Ip Llc User interface for predictive model generation

Families Citing this family (47)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US7657497B2 (en) 2006-11-07 2010-02-02 Ebay Inc. Online fraud prevention using genetic algorithm solution
WO2010132840A1 (en) * 2009-05-15 2010-11-18 Itg Software Solutions, Inc. Systems, methods and computer program products for routing electronic trade orders for execution
US8620798B2 (en) * 2009-09-11 2013-12-31 Visa International Service Association System and method using predicted consumer behavior to reduce use of transaction risk analysis and transaction denials
US8645232B1 (en) 2009-12-31 2014-02-04 Inmar, Inc. System and method for threshold billing for returned goods
US8438122B1 (en) * 2010-05-14 2013-05-07 Google Inc. Predictive analytic modeling platform
US8473431B1 (en) 2010-05-14 2013-06-25 Google Inc. Predictive analytic modeling platform
US8515863B1 (en) * 2010-09-01 2013-08-20 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Systems and methods for measuring data quality over time
WO2012088344A1 (en) * 2010-12-21 2012-06-28 Visa International Service Association Transaction rate processing apparatuses, methods and systems
US8595154B2 (en) 2011-01-26 2013-11-26 Google Inc. Dynamic predictive modeling platform
US8533222B2 (en) 2011-01-26 2013-09-10 Google Inc. Updateable predictive analytical modeling
US8533224B2 (en) 2011-05-04 2013-09-10 Google Inc. Assessing accuracy of trained predictive models
US8478688B1 (en) * 2011-12-19 2013-07-02 Emc Corporation Rapid transaction processing
US8595200B2 (en) * 2012-01-03 2013-11-26 Wizsoft Ltd. Finding suspicious association rules in data records
US9336494B1 (en) * 2012-08-20 2016-05-10 Context Relevant, Inc. Re-training a machine learning model
US20140249934A1 (en) * 2013-03-01 2014-09-04 Sas Institute Inc. Common point of purchase (cpp) detection
US9231979B2 (en) 2013-03-14 2016-01-05 Sas Institute Inc. Rule optimization for classification and detection
US9594907B2 (en) 2013-03-14 2017-03-14 Sas Institute Inc. Unauthorized activity detection and classification
US8966659B2 (en) * 2013-03-14 2015-02-24 Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Automatic fraudulent digital certificate detection
US8855999B1 (en) 2013-03-15 2014-10-07 Palantir Technologies Inc. Method and system for generating a parser and parsing complex data
US8930897B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2015-01-06 Palantir Technologies Inc. Data integration tool
US8917274B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2014-12-23 Palantir Technologies Inc. Event matrix based on integrated data
US9230280B1 (en) 2013-03-15 2016-01-05 Palantir Technologies Inc. Clustering data based on indications of financial malfeasance
US9965937B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2018-05-08 Palantir Technologies Inc. External malware data item clustering and analysis
US8818892B1 (en) 2013-03-15 2014-08-26 Palantir Technologies, Inc. Prioritizing data clusters with customizable scoring strategies
US8937619B2 (en) 2013-03-15 2015-01-20 Palantir Technologies Inc. Generating an object time series from data objects
US9116975B2 (en) 2013-10-18 2015-08-25 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and user interfaces for dynamic and interactive simultaneous querying of multiple data stores
US9508075B2 (en) * 2013-12-13 2016-11-29 Cellco Partnership Automated transaction cancellation
US9552615B2 (en) 2013-12-20 2017-01-24 Palantir Technologies Inc. Automated database analysis to detect malfeasance
US9483162B2 (en) * 2014-02-20 2016-11-01 Palantir Technologies Inc. Relationship visualizations
US9009827B1 (en) 2014-02-20 2015-04-14 Palantir Technologies Inc. Security sharing system
US9857958B2 (en) 2014-04-28 2018-01-02 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and user interfaces for dynamic and interactive access of, investigation of, and analysis of data objects stored in one or more databases
US9009171B1 (en) 2014-05-02 2015-04-14 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and methods for active column filtering
US9535974B1 (en) 2014-06-30 2017-01-03 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and methods for identifying key phrase clusters within documents
US9021260B1 (en) 2014-07-03 2015-04-28 Palantir Technologies Inc. Malware data item analysis
US9785773B2 (en) 2014-07-03 2017-10-10 Palantir Technologies Inc. Malware data item analysis
US9202249B1 (en) 2014-07-03 2015-12-01 Palantir Technologies Inc. Data item clustering and analysis
US9256664B2 (en) 2014-07-03 2016-02-09 Palantir Technologies Inc. System and method for news events detection and visualization
US9043894B1 (en) 2014-11-06 2015-05-26 Palantir Technologies Inc. Malicious software detection in a computing system
US9367872B1 (en) 2014-12-22 2016-06-14 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and user interfaces for dynamic and interactive investigation of bad actor behavior based on automatic clustering of related data in various data structures
US9348920B1 (en) 2014-12-22 2016-05-24 Palantir Technologies Inc. Concept indexing among database of documents using machine learning techniques
US9817563B1 (en) 2014-12-29 2017-11-14 Palantir Technologies Inc. System and method of generating data points from one or more data stores of data items for chart creation and manipulation
EP3314546A1 (en) * 2015-06-29 2018-05-02 Wepay Inc. System and methods for generating reason codes for ensemble computer models
US9454785B1 (en) 2015-07-30 2016-09-27 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and user interfaces for holistic, data-driven investigation of bad actor behavior based on clustering and scoring of related data
US9456000B1 (en) 2015-08-06 2016-09-27 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems, methods, user interfaces, and computer-readable media for investigating potential malicious communications
US9485265B1 (en) 2015-08-28 2016-11-01 Palantir Technologies Inc. Malicious activity detection system capable of efficiently processing data accessed from databases and generating alerts for display in interactive user interfaces
US9823818B1 (en) 2015-12-29 2017-11-21 Palantir Technologies Inc. Systems and interactive user interfaces for automatic generation of temporal representation of data objects
US9881066B1 (en) 2016-08-31 2018-01-30 Palantir Technologies, Inc. Systems, methods, user interfaces and algorithms for performing database analysis and search of information involving structured and/or semi-structured data

Citations (100)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5335291A (en) * 1991-09-20 1994-08-02 Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Method and apparatus for pattern mapping system with self-reliability check
US5500513A (en) * 1994-05-11 1996-03-19 Visa International Automated purchasing control system
US5519319A (en) * 1991-11-20 1996-05-21 Auburn International, Inc. Obtaining measurements of improved accuracy of one or more polymer properties with an on-line NMR system
US5622171A (en) * 1990-08-28 1997-04-22 Arch Development Corporation Method and system for differential diagnosis based on clinical and radiological information using artificial neural networks
US5627886A (en) * 1994-09-22 1997-05-06 Electronic Data Systems Corporation System and method for detecting fraudulent network usage patterns using real-time network monitoring
US5638492A (en) * 1992-09-08 1997-06-10 Hitachi, Ltd. Information processing apparatus and monitoring apparatus
US5650722A (en) * 1991-11-20 1997-07-22 Auburn International, Inc. Using resin age factor to obtain measurements of improved accuracy of one or more polymer properties with an on-line NMR system
US5675253A (en) * 1991-11-20 1997-10-07 Auburn International, Inc. Partial least square regression techniques in obtaining measurements of one or more polymer properties with an on-line nmr system
US5677955A (en) * 1995-04-07 1997-10-14 Financial Services Technology Consortium Electronic funds transfer instruments
US5706401A (en) * 1995-08-21 1998-01-06 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Method for editing an input quantity for a neural network
US5727161A (en) * 1994-09-16 1998-03-10 Planscan, Llc Method and apparatus for graphic analysis of variation of economic plans
US5748780A (en) * 1994-04-07 1998-05-05 Stolfo; Salvatore J. Method and apparatus for imaging, image processing and data compression
US5761442A (en) * 1994-08-31 1998-06-02 Advanced Investment Technology, Inc. Predictive neural network means and method for selecting a portfolio of securities wherein each network has been trained using data relating to a corresponding security
US5819226A (en) * 1992-09-08 1998-10-06 Hnc Software Inc. Fraud detection using predictive modeling
US5832068A (en) * 1994-06-01 1998-11-03 Davox Corporation Data processing system with real time priority updating of data records and dynamic record exclusion
US5835902A (en) * 1994-11-02 1998-11-10 Jannarone; Robert J. Concurrent learning and performance information processing system
US5884289A (en) * 1995-06-16 1999-03-16 Card Alert Services, Inc. Debit card fraud detection and control system
US5903830A (en) * 1996-08-08 1999-05-11 Joao; Raymond Anthony Transaction security apparatus and method
US5940812A (en) * 1997-08-19 1999-08-17 Loanmarket Resources, L.L.C. Apparatus and method for automatically matching a best available loan to a potential borrower via global telecommunications network
US5999596A (en) * 1998-03-06 1999-12-07 Walker Asset Management Limited Method and system for controlling authorization of credit card transactions
US6016480A (en) * 1997-11-07 2000-01-18 Image Data, Llc Merchandise return fraud prevention system and method
US6021943A (en) * 1996-10-09 2000-02-08 Chastain; Robert H. Process for executing payment transactions
US6029154A (en) * 1997-07-28 2000-02-22 Internet Commerce Services Corporation Method and system for detecting fraud in a credit card transaction over the internet
US6047268A (en) * 1997-11-04 2000-04-04 A.T.&T. Corporation Method and apparatus for billing for transactions conducted over the internet
US6047287A (en) * 1998-05-05 2000-04-04 Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center Iterated K-nearest neighbor method and article of manufacture for filling in missing values
US6064990A (en) * 1998-03-31 2000-05-16 International Business Machines Corporation System for electronic notification of account activity
US6112190A (en) * 1997-08-19 2000-08-29 Citibank, N.A. Method and system for commercial credit analysis
US6122624A (en) * 1998-05-28 2000-09-19 Automated Transaction Corp. System and method for enhanced fraud detection in automated electronic purchases
US6128602A (en) * 1997-10-27 2000-10-03 Bank Of America Corporation Open-architecture system for real-time consolidation of information from multiple financial systems
US6202053B1 (en) * 1998-01-23 2001-03-13 First Usa Bank, Na Method and apparatus for generating segmentation scorecards for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants
US6251608B1 (en) * 2000-04-20 2001-06-26 Technion Research & Development Foundation, Ltd. Method of determining a potential of a hyperglycemic patients of developing vascular complications
US20020055954A1 (en) * 2000-08-01 2002-05-09 Matthias Breuer Methods and systems for inputting data into spreadsheet documents
US6422462B1 (en) * 1998-03-30 2002-07-23 Morris E. Cohen Apparatus and methods for improved credit cards and credit card transactions
US20020099635A1 (en) * 2001-01-24 2002-07-25 Jack Guiragosian Control of account utilization
US6453206B1 (en) * 1996-11-22 2002-09-17 University Of Strathclyde Neural network for predicting values in non-linear functional mappings
US20020138417A1 (en) * 2001-03-20 2002-09-26 David Lawrence Risk management clearinghouse
US6549861B1 (en) * 2000-08-10 2003-04-15 Euro-Celtique, S.A. Automated system and method for spectroscopic analysis
US20030093366A1 (en) * 2001-11-13 2003-05-15 Halper Steven C. Automated loan risk assessment system and method
US20030097330A1 (en) * 2000-03-24 2003-05-22 Amway Corporation System and method for detecting fraudulent transactions
US20030140000A1 (en) * 2000-11-03 2003-07-24 Eun-Woo Lee On-line credit assessment system and method
US6601049B1 (en) * 1996-05-02 2003-07-29 David L. Cooper Self-adjusting multi-layer neural network architectures and methods therefor
US6599702B1 (en) * 2000-04-20 2003-07-29 Rappaport Family Institute For Research In The Medical Sciences Method of evaluating a risk of a subject of developing vascular complications
US6613519B1 (en) * 2000-04-20 2003-09-02 Rappaport Family Institute For Reseach In The Medical Sciences Method of determining a risk of hyperglycemic patients of developing a cardiovascular disease
US6622125B1 (en) * 1994-12-23 2003-09-16 International Business Machines Corporation Automatic sales promotion selection system and method
US6631212B1 (en) * 1999-09-13 2003-10-07 Eastman Kodak Company Twostage scheme for texture segmentation based on clustering using a first set of features and refinement using a second set of features
US20030191709A1 (en) * 2002-04-03 2003-10-09 Stephen Elston Distributed payment and loyalty processing for retail and vending
US6650779B2 (en) * 1999-03-26 2003-11-18 Georgia Tech Research Corp. Method and apparatus for analyzing an image to detect and identify patterns
US6675145B1 (en) * 1999-10-26 2004-01-06 Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International Method and system for integrated audiovisual speech coding at low bitrate
US6678640B2 (en) * 1998-06-10 2004-01-13 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Method and apparatus for parameter estimation, parameter estimation control and learning control
US20040039688A1 (en) * 2001-10-05 2004-02-26 Nikolas Sulkowski System and method for monitoring managing and valuing credit accounts
US20040186815A1 (en) * 2002-12-20 2004-09-23 Stockfisch Thomas P. Method for accommodating missing descriptor and property data while training neural network models
US20040236696A1 (en) * 2003-05-23 2004-11-25 Intelligent Wave, Inc. History information adding program, fraud determining program using history information, and fraud determining system using history information
US6845336B2 (en) * 2002-06-25 2005-01-18 Prasad S. Kodukula Water treatment monitoring system
US20050055373A1 (en) * 2003-09-04 2005-03-10 Forman George H. Determining point-of-compromise
US20050060207A1 (en) * 2001-05-08 2005-03-17 Weidner James L. Claims paid insurance
US20050065871A1 (en) * 2003-09-23 2005-03-24 Nucenz Technologies, Inc. Collateralized loan market systems and methods
US20050065872A1 (en) * 2003-09-12 2005-03-24 Moebs G. Michael Risk identification system and methods
US20050076230A1 (en) * 2003-10-02 2005-04-07 George Redenbaugh Fraud tracking cookie
US20050097320A1 (en) * 2003-09-12 2005-05-05 Lior Golan System and method for risk based authentication
US20050131873A1 (en) * 2003-12-16 2005-06-16 Wei Fan System and method for adaptive pruning
US20050160280A1 (en) * 2003-05-15 2005-07-21 Caslin Michael F. Method and system for providing fraud detection for remote access services
US20050222928A1 (en) * 2004-04-06 2005-10-06 Pricewaterhousecoopers Llp Systems and methods for investigation of financial reporting information
US20060020814A1 (en) * 2004-07-20 2006-01-26 Reflectent Software, Inc. End user risk management
US20060085325A1 (en) * 1998-03-20 2006-04-20 The Mcgraw Hill Companies, Inc. System, method, and computer program for assessing risk within a predefined market
US20060106700A1 (en) * 2004-11-12 2006-05-18 Boren Michael K Investment analysis and reporting system and method
US20060181411A1 (en) * 2004-02-04 2006-08-17 Fast Raymond D System for, and method of, monitoring the movements of mobile items
US20060195391A1 (en) * 2005-02-28 2006-08-31 Stanelle Evan J Modeling loss in a term structured financial portfolio
US20060212386A1 (en) * 2005-03-15 2006-09-21 Willey Dawn M Credit scoring method and system
US20060218169A1 (en) * 2005-03-22 2006-09-28 Dan Steinberg Constrained tree structure method and system
US20070038567A1 (en) * 2005-08-12 2007-02-15 Jeremy Allaire Distribution of content
US20070055595A1 (en) * 2005-09-06 2007-03-08 Ge Corporate Financial Services, Inc. Methods and system for assessing loss severity for commercial loans
US20070072585A1 (en) * 1992-11-12 2007-03-29 Lightbridge, Inc. Apparatus and Method for Credit Based Management of Telecommunication Activity
US20070106582A1 (en) * 2005-10-04 2007-05-10 Baker James C System and method of detecting fraud
US20070136187A1 (en) * 2000-02-22 2007-06-14 Brandywine Building Automated loan evaluation system
US20070192167A1 (en) * 2005-10-24 2007-08-16 Ying Lei Methods and systems for managing transaction card customer accounts
US20070198401A1 (en) * 2006-01-18 2007-08-23 Reto Kunz System and method for automatic evaluation of credit requests
US20070219817A1 (en) * 2006-03-16 2007-09-20 Jianqing Wu Universal Negotiation Forum
US20070226129A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2007-09-27 Yuansong Liao System and method of detecting mortgage related fraud
US20070239606A1 (en) * 2004-03-02 2007-10-11 Ori Eisen Method and system for identifying users and detecting fraud by use of the internet
US20080114783A1 (en) * 2006-11-15 2008-05-15 Nguyen Tien M Method, system, and program product for managing a process and it interlock
US20080126267A1 (en) * 2006-03-15 2008-05-29 Entaire Global Intellectual Property, Inc. System for managing the total risk exposure for a portfolio of loans
US20080133518A1 (en) * 2005-07-01 2008-06-05 Harsh Kapoor Systems and methods for processing data flows
US20080134236A1 (en) * 2000-02-29 2008-06-05 Akio Iijima Method and apparatus for controlling reproduction of advertisements
US7392216B1 (en) * 2000-09-27 2008-06-24 Ge Capital Mortgage Corporation Methods and apparatus for utilizing a proportional hazards model to evaluate loan risk
US20080195528A1 (en) * 2005-01-25 2008-08-14 I4 Commerce Inc. Computer-Implemented Method and System for Dynamic Consumer Rating in a Transaction
US20080243569A1 (en) * 2007-04-02 2008-10-02 Michael Shane Hadden Automated loan system and method
US20090018955A1 (en) * 2007-07-13 2009-01-15 Yen-Fu Chen Method and apparatus for providing user access to payment methods
US20090125973A1 (en) * 2007-11-14 2009-05-14 Byers Allan C Method for analyzing and managing unstructured data
US20090171834A1 (en) * 2007-12-27 2009-07-02 Liu Alexander A Systems and methods to select a credit migration path for a consumer
US20090192957A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2009-07-30 Revathi Subramanian Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US20090254487A1 (en) * 2000-10-02 2009-10-08 International Projects Consultancy Services, Inc. Automated loan processing system and method
US7610257B1 (en) * 2006-01-10 2009-10-27 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods
US20090307028A1 (en) * 2006-02-06 2009-12-10 Mediakey Ltd. A method and a system for identifying potentially fraudulent customers in relation to electronic customer action based systems, and a computer program for performing said method
US7761379B2 (en) * 2005-06-24 2010-07-20 Fair Isaac Corporation Mass compromise/point of compromise analytic detection and compromised card portfolio management system
US7765148B2 (en) * 1999-12-30 2010-07-27 First Data Corporation Method and system for facilitating payment of an online auction transaction
US7801839B2 (en) * 2002-07-04 2010-09-21 Kates Ronald E Method for training a learning-capable system
US20110112955A1 (en) * 2002-12-30 2011-05-12 Fannie Mae System and method for pricing loans in the secondary mortgage market
US7962404B1 (en) * 2007-11-07 2011-06-14 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Systems and methods for determining loan opportunities
US8065227B1 (en) * 2003-12-31 2011-11-22 Bank Of America Corporation Method and system for producing custom behavior scores for use in credit decisioning
US8280805B1 (en) * 2006-01-10 2012-10-02 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods

Family Cites Families (46)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US192167A (en) * 1877-06-19 Improvement in methods of ornamenting metallic surfaces for jewelry
US99635A (en) * 1870-02-08 Improvement in fountain-pens
US5655085A (en) * 1992-08-17 1997-08-05 The Ryan Evalulife Systems, Inc. Computer system for automated comparing of universal life insurance policies based on selectable criteria
US5448684A (en) * 1993-11-12 1995-09-05 Motorola, Inc. Neural network, neuron, and method for recognizing a missing input valve
US5523942A (en) * 1994-03-31 1996-06-04 New England Mutual Life Insurance Company Design grid for inputting insurance and investment product information in a computer system
US7403922B1 (en) 1997-07-28 2008-07-22 Cybersource Corporation Method and apparatus for evaluating fraud risk in an electronic commerce transaction
US6601048B1 (en) 1997-09-12 2003-07-29 Mci Communications Corporation System and method for detecting and managing fraud
US6125349A (en) 1997-10-01 2000-09-26 At&T Corp. Method and apparatus using digital credentials and other electronic certificates for electronic transactions
US6360326B1 (en) * 1998-09-09 2002-03-19 Compaq Information Technologies Group, L.P. Password delay
US6170744B1 (en) 1998-09-24 2001-01-09 Payformance Corporation Self-authenticating negotiable documents
US6401198B1 (en) * 1999-03-09 2002-06-04 Texas Instruments Incorporated Storing system-level mass storage configuration data in non-volatile memory on each mass storage device to allow for reboot/power-on reconfiguration of all installed mass storage devices to the same configuration as last use
US7086584B2 (en) * 1999-08-09 2006-08-08 First Data Corporation Systems and methods for configuring a point-of-sale system
US6827260B2 (en) * 1999-08-09 2004-12-07 First Data Corporation Systems and methods for utilizing a point-of-sale system
US20070011224A1 (en) * 1999-10-22 2007-01-11 Jesus Mena Real-time Internet data mining system and method for aggregating, routing, enhancing, preparing, and analyzing web databases
CA2390705A1 (en) * 1999-11-09 2001-05-17 Fraud-Check.Com, Inc. Method and system for detecting fraud in non-personal transactions
US6516056B1 (en) 2000-01-07 2003-02-04 Vesta Corporation Fraud prevention system and method
US7191150B1 (en) 2000-02-01 2007-03-13 Fair Isaac Corporation Enhancing delinquent debt collection using statistical models of debt historical information and account events
US7353208B1 (en) * 2000-02-02 2008-04-01 Transaction Network Services, Inc. Transaction processing using intermediate server architecture
US20010056379A1 (en) * 2000-04-10 2001-12-27 Kazuya Fujinaga Electronic commerce broking system
US20060106717A1 (en) * 2000-05-25 2006-05-18 Randle William M End to end check processing from capture to settlement with security and quality assurance
US7565326B2 (en) * 2000-05-25 2009-07-21 Randle William M Dialect independent multi-dimensional integrator using a normalized language platform and secure controlled access
US7698158B1 (en) * 2000-10-24 2010-04-13 Theinsuranceadvisor Technologies, Inc. Life insurance policy evaluation method
US6388592B1 (en) * 2001-01-18 2002-05-14 International Business Machines Corporation Using simulated pseudo data to speed up statistical predictive modeling from massive data sets
US20020103678A1 (en) * 2001-02-01 2002-08-01 Burkhalter Swinton B. Multi-risk insurance system and method
US6901398B1 (en) * 2001-02-12 2005-05-31 Microsoft Corporation System and method for constructing and personalizing a universal information classifier
JP2005502937A (en) 2001-05-15 2005-01-27 サイコジェニックス・インコーポレーテッドPsychogenics Inc. System and method for monitoring the behavior and Information Engineering
US7865427B2 (en) 2001-05-30 2011-01-04 Cybersource Corporation Method and apparatus for evaluating fraud risk in an electronic commerce transaction
US20030187780A1 (en) * 2002-03-27 2003-10-02 First Data Corporation Systems and methods for managing collections relating to merchant accounts
US20030212629A1 (en) * 2002-05-07 2003-11-13 King Philip Joseph Benton Authent-eCard is an implementation of business rules and a rules engine on a portable data device, point-of-sale interface and internet portal to apply predefined rules to the automated approval of financial transactions
US20040267660A1 (en) * 2003-02-21 2004-12-30 Automated Financial Systems, Inc. Risk management system
US20040267647A1 (en) * 2003-06-30 2004-12-30 Brisbois Dorion P. Capital market products including securitized life settlement bonds and methods of issuing, servicing and redeeming same
US7467119B2 (en) 2003-07-21 2008-12-16 Aureon Laboratories, Inc. Systems and methods for treating, diagnosing and predicting the occurrence of a medical condition
US7461048B2 (en) 2003-07-21 2008-12-02 Aureon Laboratories, Inc. Systems and methods for treating, diagnosing and predicting the occurrence of a medical condition
US7480640B1 (en) 2003-12-16 2009-01-20 Quantum Leap Research, Inc. Automated method and system for generating models from data
US7562058B2 (en) 2004-04-16 2009-07-14 Fortelligent, Inc. Predictive model management using a re-entrant process
US7296734B2 (en) * 2004-06-02 2007-11-20 Robert Kenneth Pliha Systems and methods for scoring bank customers direct deposit account transaction activity to match financial behavior to specific acquisition, performance and risk events defined by the bank using a decision tree and stochastic process
US20060041455A1 (en) * 2004-08-13 2006-02-23 Dehais Robert E Systems and methods for providing an enhanced option rider to an insurance policy
US8285613B1 (en) * 2004-12-16 2012-10-09 Coulter David B System and method for managing consumer information
US7455226B1 (en) 2005-04-18 2008-11-25 The Return Exchange, Inc. Systems and methods for data collection at a point of return
US8271364B2 (en) * 2005-06-09 2012-09-18 Bank Of America Corporation Method and apparatus for obtaining, organizing, and analyzing multi-source data
US20070050217A1 (en) * 2005-08-26 2007-03-01 Holden Ellsworth J Jr Method for forming a multi-peril insurance policy
US7647261B2 (en) * 2005-09-15 2010-01-12 Integrated Finance Limited Method and apparatus for retirement income planning
US7836394B2 (en) * 2006-04-18 2010-11-16 Savanet Llc Interactive, customizable display and analysis of electronically tagged financial information
US8433606B2 (en) * 2007-01-30 2013-04-30 At&T Intellectual Property I, L.P. Methods and apparatus to determine when to deflect callers to websites
US20080301038A1 (en) * 2007-06-04 2008-12-04 Risk Allocation Systems System and Method for Sharing and Allocating Financial Risk Associated with a Loan
US8515862B2 (en) * 2008-05-29 2013-08-20 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented systems and methods for integrated model validation for compliance and credit risk

Patent Citations (102)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US5622171A (en) * 1990-08-28 1997-04-22 Arch Development Corporation Method and system for differential diagnosis based on clinical and radiological information using artificial neural networks
US5335291A (en) * 1991-09-20 1994-08-02 Massachusetts Institute Of Technology Method and apparatus for pattern mapping system with self-reliability check
US5650722A (en) * 1991-11-20 1997-07-22 Auburn International, Inc. Using resin age factor to obtain measurements of improved accuracy of one or more polymer properties with an on-line NMR system
US5519319A (en) * 1991-11-20 1996-05-21 Auburn International, Inc. Obtaining measurements of improved accuracy of one or more polymer properties with an on-line NMR system
US5675253A (en) * 1991-11-20 1997-10-07 Auburn International, Inc. Partial least square regression techniques in obtaining measurements of one or more polymer properties with an on-line nmr system
US5819226A (en) * 1992-09-08 1998-10-06 Hnc Software Inc. Fraud detection using predictive modeling
US5638492A (en) * 1992-09-08 1997-06-10 Hitachi, Ltd. Information processing apparatus and monitoring apparatus
US20070072585A1 (en) * 1992-11-12 2007-03-29 Lightbridge, Inc. Apparatus and Method for Credit Based Management of Telecommunication Activity
US5748780A (en) * 1994-04-07 1998-05-05 Stolfo; Salvatore J. Method and apparatus for imaging, image processing and data compression
US5500513A (en) * 1994-05-11 1996-03-19 Visa International Automated purchasing control system
US5832068A (en) * 1994-06-01 1998-11-03 Davox Corporation Data processing system with real time priority updating of data records and dynamic record exclusion
US5761442A (en) * 1994-08-31 1998-06-02 Advanced Investment Technology, Inc. Predictive neural network means and method for selecting a portfolio of securities wherein each network has been trained using data relating to a corresponding security
US5727161A (en) * 1994-09-16 1998-03-10 Planscan, Llc Method and apparatus for graphic analysis of variation of economic plans
US5627886A (en) * 1994-09-22 1997-05-06 Electronic Data Systems Corporation System and method for detecting fraudulent network usage patterns using real-time network monitoring
US5835902A (en) * 1994-11-02 1998-11-10 Jannarone; Robert J. Concurrent learning and performance information processing system
US6622125B1 (en) * 1994-12-23 2003-09-16 International Business Machines Corporation Automatic sales promotion selection system and method
US5677955A (en) * 1995-04-07 1997-10-14 Financial Services Technology Consortium Electronic funds transfer instruments
US5884289A (en) * 1995-06-16 1999-03-16 Card Alert Services, Inc. Debit card fraud detection and control system
US5706401A (en) * 1995-08-21 1998-01-06 Siemens Aktiengesellschaft Method for editing an input quantity for a neural network
US6601049B1 (en) * 1996-05-02 2003-07-29 David L. Cooper Self-adjusting multi-layer neural network architectures and methods therefor
US5903830A (en) * 1996-08-08 1999-05-11 Joao; Raymond Anthony Transaction security apparatus and method
US6021943A (en) * 1996-10-09 2000-02-08 Chastain; Robert H. Process for executing payment transactions
US6453206B1 (en) * 1996-11-22 2002-09-17 University Of Strathclyde Neural network for predicting values in non-linear functional mappings
US6029154A (en) * 1997-07-28 2000-02-22 Internet Commerce Services Corporation Method and system for detecting fraud in a credit card transaction over the internet
US6112190A (en) * 1997-08-19 2000-08-29 Citibank, N.A. Method and system for commercial credit analysis
US5940812A (en) * 1997-08-19 1999-08-17 Loanmarket Resources, L.L.C. Apparatus and method for automatically matching a best available loan to a potential borrower via global telecommunications network
US6128602A (en) * 1997-10-27 2000-10-03 Bank Of America Corporation Open-architecture system for real-time consolidation of information from multiple financial systems
US6047268A (en) * 1997-11-04 2000-04-04 A.T.&T. Corporation Method and apparatus for billing for transactions conducted over the internet
US6016480A (en) * 1997-11-07 2000-01-18 Image Data, Llc Merchandise return fraud prevention system and method
US6202053B1 (en) * 1998-01-23 2001-03-13 First Usa Bank, Na Method and apparatus for generating segmentation scorecards for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants
US5999596A (en) * 1998-03-06 1999-12-07 Walker Asset Management Limited Method and system for controlling authorization of credit card transactions
US20060085325A1 (en) * 1998-03-20 2006-04-20 The Mcgraw Hill Companies, Inc. System, method, and computer program for assessing risk within a predefined market
US6422462B1 (en) * 1998-03-30 2002-07-23 Morris E. Cohen Apparatus and methods for improved credit cards and credit card transactions
US6064990A (en) * 1998-03-31 2000-05-16 International Business Machines Corporation System for electronic notification of account activity
US6047287A (en) * 1998-05-05 2000-04-04 Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center Iterated K-nearest neighbor method and article of manufacture for filling in missing values
US6122624A (en) * 1998-05-28 2000-09-19 Automated Transaction Corp. System and method for enhanced fraud detection in automated electronic purchases
US6678640B2 (en) * 1998-06-10 2004-01-13 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Method and apparatus for parameter estimation, parameter estimation control and learning control
US6650779B2 (en) * 1999-03-26 2003-11-18 Georgia Tech Research Corp. Method and apparatus for analyzing an image to detect and identify patterns
US6631212B1 (en) * 1999-09-13 2003-10-07 Eastman Kodak Company Twostage scheme for texture segmentation based on clustering using a first set of features and refinement using a second set of features
US6675145B1 (en) * 1999-10-26 2004-01-06 Advanced Telecommunications Research Institute International Method and system for integrated audiovisual speech coding at low bitrate
US7765148B2 (en) * 1999-12-30 2010-07-27 First Data Corporation Method and system for facilitating payment of an online auction transaction
US20070136187A1 (en) * 2000-02-22 2007-06-14 Brandywine Building Automated loan evaluation system
US20080134236A1 (en) * 2000-02-29 2008-06-05 Akio Iijima Method and apparatus for controlling reproduction of advertisements
US20030097330A1 (en) * 2000-03-24 2003-05-22 Amway Corporation System and method for detecting fraudulent transactions
US6599702B1 (en) * 2000-04-20 2003-07-29 Rappaport Family Institute For Research In The Medical Sciences Method of evaluating a risk of a subject of developing vascular complications
US6251608B1 (en) * 2000-04-20 2001-06-26 Technion Research & Development Foundation, Ltd. Method of determining a potential of a hyperglycemic patients of developing vascular complications
US6613519B1 (en) * 2000-04-20 2003-09-02 Rappaport Family Institute For Reseach In The Medical Sciences Method of determining a risk of hyperglycemic patients of developing a cardiovascular disease
US20020055954A1 (en) * 2000-08-01 2002-05-09 Matthias Breuer Methods and systems for inputting data into spreadsheet documents
US6549861B1 (en) * 2000-08-10 2003-04-15 Euro-Celtique, S.A. Automated system and method for spectroscopic analysis
US7392216B1 (en) * 2000-09-27 2008-06-24 Ge Capital Mortgage Corporation Methods and apparatus for utilizing a proportional hazards model to evaluate loan risk
US20090254487A1 (en) * 2000-10-02 2009-10-08 International Projects Consultancy Services, Inc. Automated loan processing system and method
US20030140000A1 (en) * 2000-11-03 2003-07-24 Eun-Woo Lee On-line credit assessment system and method
US20020099635A1 (en) * 2001-01-24 2002-07-25 Jack Guiragosian Control of account utilization
US20020138417A1 (en) * 2001-03-20 2002-09-26 David Lawrence Risk management clearinghouse
US20050060207A1 (en) * 2001-05-08 2005-03-17 Weidner James L. Claims paid insurance
US20040039688A1 (en) * 2001-10-05 2004-02-26 Nikolas Sulkowski System and method for monitoring managing and valuing credit accounts
US20030093366A1 (en) * 2001-11-13 2003-05-15 Halper Steven C. Automated loan risk assessment system and method
US20030191709A1 (en) * 2002-04-03 2003-10-09 Stephen Elston Distributed payment and loyalty processing for retail and vending
US6845336B2 (en) * 2002-06-25 2005-01-18 Prasad S. Kodukula Water treatment monitoring system
US7801839B2 (en) * 2002-07-04 2010-09-21 Kates Ronald E Method for training a learning-capable system
US20040186815A1 (en) * 2002-12-20 2004-09-23 Stockfisch Thomas P. Method for accommodating missing descriptor and property data while training neural network models
US20110112955A1 (en) * 2002-12-30 2011-05-12 Fannie Mae System and method for pricing loans in the secondary mortgage market
US20050160280A1 (en) * 2003-05-15 2005-07-21 Caslin Michael F. Method and system for providing fraud detection for remote access services
US20040236696A1 (en) * 2003-05-23 2004-11-25 Intelligent Wave, Inc. History information adding program, fraud determining program using history information, and fraud determining system using history information
US20050055373A1 (en) * 2003-09-04 2005-03-10 Forman George H. Determining point-of-compromise
US20050065872A1 (en) * 2003-09-12 2005-03-24 Moebs G. Michael Risk identification system and methods
US20050097320A1 (en) * 2003-09-12 2005-05-05 Lior Golan System and method for risk based authentication
US20050065871A1 (en) * 2003-09-23 2005-03-24 Nucenz Technologies, Inc. Collateralized loan market systems and methods
US20050076230A1 (en) * 2003-10-02 2005-04-07 George Redenbaugh Fraud tracking cookie
US20050131873A1 (en) * 2003-12-16 2005-06-16 Wei Fan System and method for adaptive pruning
US8065227B1 (en) * 2003-12-31 2011-11-22 Bank Of America Corporation Method and system for producing custom behavior scores for use in credit decisioning
US20060181411A1 (en) * 2004-02-04 2006-08-17 Fast Raymond D System for, and method of, monitoring the movements of mobile items
US20070239606A1 (en) * 2004-03-02 2007-10-11 Ori Eisen Method and system for identifying users and detecting fraud by use of the internet
US20050222928A1 (en) * 2004-04-06 2005-10-06 Pricewaterhousecoopers Llp Systems and methods for investigation of financial reporting information
US20060020814A1 (en) * 2004-07-20 2006-01-26 Reflectent Software, Inc. End user risk management
US20060106700A1 (en) * 2004-11-12 2006-05-18 Boren Michael K Investment analysis and reporting system and method
US20080195528A1 (en) * 2005-01-25 2008-08-14 I4 Commerce Inc. Computer-Implemented Method and System for Dynamic Consumer Rating in a Transaction
US20060195391A1 (en) * 2005-02-28 2006-08-31 Stanelle Evan J Modeling loss in a term structured financial portfolio
US20060212386A1 (en) * 2005-03-15 2006-09-21 Willey Dawn M Credit scoring method and system
US20060218169A1 (en) * 2005-03-22 2006-09-28 Dan Steinberg Constrained tree structure method and system
US7761379B2 (en) * 2005-06-24 2010-07-20 Fair Isaac Corporation Mass compromise/point of compromise analytic detection and compromised card portfolio management system
US20080133518A1 (en) * 2005-07-01 2008-06-05 Harsh Kapoor Systems and methods for processing data flows
US20070038567A1 (en) * 2005-08-12 2007-02-15 Jeremy Allaire Distribution of content
US20070055595A1 (en) * 2005-09-06 2007-03-08 Ge Corporate Financial Services, Inc. Methods and system for assessing loss severity for commercial loans
US20070106582A1 (en) * 2005-10-04 2007-05-10 Baker James C System and method of detecting fraud
US20070192167A1 (en) * 2005-10-24 2007-08-16 Ying Lei Methods and systems for managing transaction card customer accounts
US8280805B1 (en) * 2006-01-10 2012-10-02 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods
US7610257B1 (en) * 2006-01-10 2009-10-27 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods
US20120296806A1 (en) * 2006-01-10 2012-11-22 Clark Richard Abrahams Computer-Implemented Risk Evaluation Systems And Methods
US20070198401A1 (en) * 2006-01-18 2007-08-23 Reto Kunz System and method for automatic evaluation of credit requests
US20090307028A1 (en) * 2006-02-06 2009-12-10 Mediakey Ltd. A method and a system for identifying potentially fraudulent customers in relation to electronic customer action based systems, and a computer program for performing said method
US20080126267A1 (en) * 2006-03-15 2008-05-29 Entaire Global Intellectual Property, Inc. System for managing the total risk exposure for a portfolio of loans
US20070219817A1 (en) * 2006-03-16 2007-09-20 Jianqing Wu Universal Negotiation Forum
US20100042454A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2010-02-18 Basepoint Analytics Llc System and method of detecting mortgage related fraud
US20070226129A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2007-09-27 Yuansong Liao System and method of detecting mortgage related fraud
US20090192957A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2009-07-30 Revathi Subramanian Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US20080114783A1 (en) * 2006-11-15 2008-05-15 Nguyen Tien M Method, system, and program product for managing a process and it interlock
US20080243569A1 (en) * 2007-04-02 2008-10-02 Michael Shane Hadden Automated loan system and method
US20090018955A1 (en) * 2007-07-13 2009-01-15 Yen-Fu Chen Method and apparatus for providing user access to payment methods
US7962404B1 (en) * 2007-11-07 2011-06-14 Experian Information Solutions, Inc. Systems and methods for determining loan opportunities
US20090125973A1 (en) * 2007-11-14 2009-05-14 Byers Allan C Method for analyzing and managing unstructured data
US20090171834A1 (en) * 2007-12-27 2009-07-02 Liu Alexander A Systems and methods to select a credit migration path for a consumer

Cited By (15)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US8498931B2 (en) 2006-01-10 2013-07-30 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods
US20090192957A1 (en) * 2006-03-24 2009-07-30 Revathi Subramanian Computer-Implemented Data Storage Systems And Methods For Use With Predictive Model Systems
US8015133B1 (en) * 2007-02-20 2011-09-06 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented modeling systems and methods for analyzing and predicting computer network intrusions
US20090177598A1 (en) * 2008-01-08 2009-07-09 General Electric Company Method for building predictive models with incomplete data
US8364614B2 (en) * 2008-01-08 2013-01-29 General Electric Company Method for building predictive models with incomplete data
US8515862B2 (en) 2008-05-29 2013-08-20 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented systems and methods for integrated model validation for compliance and credit risk
US8521631B2 (en) 2008-05-29 2013-08-27 Sas Institute Inc. Computer-implemented systems and methods for loan evaluation using a credit assessment framework
US20130253965A1 (en) * 2012-03-21 2013-09-26 Roshin Joseph Time dependent transaction queue
US9489433B2 (en) * 2012-12-22 2016-11-08 Mmodal Ip Llc User interface for predictive model generation
US9251203B2 (en) 2012-12-22 2016-02-02 Mmodal Ip Llc User interface for predictive model generation
US20160140193A1 (en) * 2012-12-22 2016-05-19 Mmodal Ip Llc User Interface for Predictive Model Generation
GB2512340A (en) * 2013-03-27 2014-10-01 Riskpointer Oy Electronic arrangement and related method for automated fraud prevention in connection with digital transactions
US20150161611A1 (en) * 2013-12-10 2015-06-11 Sas Institute Inc. Systems and Methods for Self-Similarity Measure
US20150262184A1 (en) * 2014-03-12 2015-09-17 Microsoft Corporation Two stage risk model building and evaluation
US20160012544A1 (en) * 2014-05-28 2016-01-14 Sridevi Ramaswamy Insurance claim validation and anomaly detection based on modus operandi analysis

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date Type
US20130339218A1 (en) 2013-12-19 application
US20090192957A1 (en) 2009-07-30 application
US7912773B1 (en) 2011-03-22 grant

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
Garlappi et al. Default risk, shareholder advantage, and stock returns
Siddiqi Credit risk scorecards: developing and implementing intelligent credit scoring
Khandani et al. Consumer credit-risk models via machine-learning algorithms
US6609120B1 (en) Decision management system which automatically searches for strategy components in a strategy
US7010495B1 (en) Methods and systems for analyzing historical trends in marketing campaigns
Olson et al. Advanced data mining techniques
Hsieh An integrated data mining and behavioral scoring model for analyzing bank customers
US7263506B2 (en) Identification and management of fraudulent credit/debit card purchases at merchant ecommerce sites
US6970830B1 (en) Methods and systems for analyzing marketing campaigns
US7003476B1 (en) Methods and systems for defining targeted marketing campaigns using embedded models and historical data
US8204774B2 (en) Estimating the spend capacity of consumer households
US6456983B1 (en) Method for managing disposition of delinquent accounts
US7392221B2 (en) Methods and systems for identifying early terminating loan customers
US6708155B1 (en) Decision management system with automated strategy optimization
US20020152155A1 (en) Method for automated and integrated lending process
US6546545B1 (en) Versioning in a rules based decision management system
US7360697B1 (en) Methods and systems for making pricing decisions in a price management system
US20100161379A1 (en) Methods and systems for predicting consumer behavior from transaction card purchases
US7610257B1 (en) Computer-implemented risk evaluation systems and methods
US20040111363A1 (en) Method and system for enhancing credit line management, price management and other discretionary levels setting for financial accounts
Simoudis Reality check for data mining
US20090106178A1 (en) Computer-Implemented Systems And Methods For Updating Predictive Models
US20060085325A1 (en) System, method, and computer program for assessing risk within a predefined market
US20080221990A1 (en) Estimating the spend capacity of consumer households
US20060212386A1 (en) Credit scoring method and system