Neural Network Fraud Detection Scoring

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional data security systems often result in unnecessary transaction declines due to strong security measures, which can hinder legitimate access to secure data or conduct of payment transactions, while failing to effectively differentiate between authorized and unauthorized interactions.

Innovation Solution

A method involving a computer system that receives historical interaction data, assigns weights to data fields, generates a neural network, identifies feature indicators for different classes, updates a probability distribution component using feature indicators from compromised accounts, and applies this component to current data to score interactions, thereby improving fraud detection and minimizing false positives.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If strong security rules are implemented to prevent unauthorized transactions, then fraud detection capability is improved, but legitimate transactions are unnecessarily declined

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefraud detection capabilityVSAvoidtransaction throughput
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system applies different levels of scrutiny to different transactions based on their risk characteristics. Instead of uniform strong security rules, the patent implements localized security measures where only transactions with suspicious features trigger additional validation, while normal transactions proceed smoothly. This is achieved through the neural network's ability to identify specific feature indicators that warrant enhanced security checks.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically adjusts security parameters based on the transaction being evaluated. The neural network analyzes multiple data fields and their interdependencies to determine the appropriate level of security intervention for each transaction. Transactions with high-risk parameter combinations receive stricter scrutiny, while low-risk transactions experience minimal friction.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Reliability

If conventional security systems are used to block fraudulent transactions, then security coverage is improved, but false positive rate increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesecurity coverageVSAvoidfraud detection accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the fraud detection process into multiple independent evaluation stages. The neural network separately evaluates different feature indicators (such as transaction amount, location, time, device information) and combines these assessments to form an overall fraud probability. This segmented approach allows the system to identify which specific features contribute to fraud risk, improving precision by focusing on the most indicative characteristics rather than applying blanket security rules.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system replaces conventional rule-based mechanical security systems with a neural network-based intelligent system. Instead of relying on pre-defined static rules that generate false positives, the patent employs a learned model that adapts to patterns in the data. The neural network processes interdependent data fields and automatically identifies complex fraud patterns that conventional systems miss, significantly reducing false positives while maintaining high security coverage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Measurement precision

If fine grained fraud detection rules are implemented, then fraud detection precision is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefraud detection precisionVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a universal neural network architecture that handles multiple fraud detection functions through a single system. The same network structure processes different types of transactions (payments, data access, location access) and evaluates various feature indicators using consistent methodologies. This multi-functional approach achieves fine-grained detection precision without proportionally increasing system complexity, as the neural network learns general fraud patterns applicable across different transaction types.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The neural network performs self-training and self-optimization by learning from historical transaction data and identified fraud patterns. The system automatically adjusts its internal parameters and feature weights to improve detection precision over time without requiring manual rule configuration. This self-service capability reduces the operational complexity of maintaining fine-grained detection rules, as the system autonomously adapts to emerging fraud techniques.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Data Source

PatentUS12045357B2System for designing and validating fine grained fraud detection rules
Publication Date: 2024.07.23 VISA INTERNATIONAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION
  • US12045357B2 patent drawing
  • US12045357B2 patent drawing
  • US12045357B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method includes receiving historical interaction data, which includes a plurality of historical interactions. Each historical interaction is associated with a plurality of data fields. The method includes assigning a plurality of weights to the plurality of data fields, generating a neural network using the plurality of weights and the plurality of data fields, identifying a first plurality of feature indicators indicative of a first class, the first class being different from a second class; receiving a second plurality of feature indicators derived from data relating to compromised accounts, updating, a probability distribution component using the first plurality of feature indicators and the second plurality of feature indicators, and receiving current data for an interaction. The method also includes applying the probability distribution component to the current data, and scoring the interaction using the probability distribution component.