Fraud Rule Generation via Adaptive Thresholding

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Fraud detection systems face challenges in adapting to evolving fraudulent tactics, as fraudsters continually change their methods, making it difficult to effectively identify and flag fraudulent behavior.

Innovation Solution

A computer system and method that generates fraud rule criteria by creating and categorizing training data, calculating metrics, and selecting cutoff values to flag risky groups, which are then used to generate fraud rule criteria, allowing for continuous adaptation to new fraud patterns.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If traditional fraud detection algorithms are used, then existing fraud patterns can be detected, but the system cannot adapt to evolving fraudulent tactics

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to new fraud patternsVSAvoiddetection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by continuously training on recent transaction data before new fraud patterns fully emerge. This proactive training approach allows the model to learn and adapt to evolving fraud tactics ahead of time, improving detectability of new patterns while maintaining reliability through continuous validation

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback loops where detection results and new transaction data continuously feed back into model retraining. This closed-loop approach allows the system to learn from both confirmed fraud cases and legitimate transactions, continuously improving adaptability to new tactics while maintaining detection accuracy through iterative optimization

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If fraud detection rules are updated frequently to catch new tactics, then detection accuracy improves, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection accuracyVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs self-service by automatically retraining and updating its own fraud detection models without requiring manual intervention for each rule update. This automation reduces system complexity by eliminating the need for manual rule management while maintaining high detection accuracy through continuous self-optimization

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system manages complexity by changing parameters incrementally through continuous training on new data rather than making large, discrete rule updates. This gradual parameter adjustment allows the model to adapt to new fraud tactics while maintaining system stability and reducing operational complexity

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Reliability

If more training data is used to improve model accuracy, then detection performance improves, but processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedetection performanceVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary training actions on batches of recent transaction data before they are needed for detection. This advance processing allows the model to be pre-adapted to emerging patterns, improving detection performance while minimizing real-time processing delays

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements periodic training cycles where models are retrained at scheduled intervals or when certain data thresholds are met. This periodic approach balances the need for up-to-date detection performance with acceptable processing times by concentrating computational effort in periodic batches rather than continuous real-time processing

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentUS20250104074A1System and method for generating fraud rule criteria
Publication Date: 2025.03.27 THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK
  • US20250104074A1 patent drawing
  • US20250104074A1 patent drawing
  • US20250104074A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A computer system comprises at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to create a first set of training data that includes data flagged as fraud and data flagged as not fraud; categorize the first set of training data into a number of first groups; for each first group, calculate at least one metric; compare the at least one metric to a number of first cutoff values; select a first cutoff value that generates a maximum performance output as a first threshold; flag at least one first group that has the at least one metric below the first threshold as risky; and generate fraud rule criteria based on the at least one first group.