Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Perimeter

6/20/2019
02:00 PM
Cleber Martins
Cleber Martins
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

'Democratizing' Machine Learning for Fraud Prevention & Payments Intelligence

How fraud experts can fight cybercrime by 'downloading' their knowledge and experience into computer models.

Throughout the financial industry, executives are acknowledging that machine learning can quickly and successfully process the vast volume and variety of data within a bank's operations — a task that's nearly impossible for humans to do at the same speed and scale. However, only about half of enterprises are using machine learning. Why? A bank-wide machine learning project is a huge undertaking, requiring major investment in technology and human resources.

Moreover, past projects that have failed to deliver a return on investment (ROI) have led to internal disappointment and, in some cases, mistrust in the technology. However, with smaller, more tactical machine learning projects that can be rapidly deployed, banks can reap the benefits from Day One. One such project is fraud prevention.

The current barrier to delivering fraud protection through machine learning often lies in the solutions themselves, which require data scientists to create the initial models. A fraud expert knows that a specific correlation between transaction types in a sequence is a strong fraud indicator, but the data scientist will need many more interactions with the same data to draw the same conclusion.

Fraud Experts or Data Scientists?
A machine learning model is only as good as the instructions it is given. This can be particularly challenging while setting up fraud prevention algorithms because fraud is a relatively small percentage of successful transactions, which means the model has fewer opportunities to learn. As a result, solutions that enable fraud experts, instead of data scientists, to input the initial correlations will deliver results faster in terms of identifying new correlations across different data sets as they're more familiar with the instances where fraud is likely to occur. This allows the organization to reduce the time to ROI of their machine learning projects.

This "democratization of machine learning" empowers fraud experts to "download" their knowledge and experience into computer models. It's particularly effective in areas where fraud has not yet reached critical mass to support fraud experts as they use their experience and instincts to investigate certain transactions or customer behaviors, even if they are not yet fraudulent or highly indicative of fraud. Feedback based on these kinds of instincts will aid the machine learning model to fine-tune itself, and improve accuracy and consistency in identifying more complex fraud indicators.

Teaching the Machine
Continuous involvement of fraud experts is key to developing the machine learning model over time. By bringing fraud experts closer to machine learning, they have transparent views into the models and can apply strategies and controls to best leverage the outcome of the intelligence from the models. As they input to the model, they're able to investigate the output as the model generates intelligence and use their human expertise to confirm fraud instances. They can also combine their all-encompassing customer view with insights correctly generated by the model.

If the "human intelligence" confirms the insights, these can be fed back into the model. If the model consistently flags a correlation between data sets as potential fraud and the analysts consistently confirm this as fraud, then a strategy and control based on this information can be added to underpin the model. These can, in turn, be used to automate the decisions that fraud analysts themselves have consistently made, and, ultimately, reduce the need for automatic actions that impact the customer experience, such as freezing a credit card when a suspicious purchase is made — even though the purchase is legitimate.

Related Content:

Cleber Martins is head of payments intelligence, ACI Worldwide. He has nearly two decades' experience in fraud prevention and anti-money laundering strategies. View Full Bio
 

Recommended Reading:

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
7 Old IT Things Every New InfoSec Pro Should Know
Joan Goodchild, Staff Editor,  4/20/2021
News
Cloud-Native Businesses Struggle With Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/6/2021
Commentary
Defending Against Web Scraping Attacks
Rob Simon, Principal Security Consultant at TrustedSec,  5/7/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
How Enterprises are Developing Secure Applications
Recent breaches of third-party apps are driving many organizations to think harder about the security of their off-the-shelf software as they continue to move left in secure software development practices.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-36289
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-12
Affected versions of Atlassian Jira Server and Data Center allow an unauthenticated user to enumerate users via an Information Disclosure vulnerability in the QueryComponentRendererValue!Default.jspa endpoint. The affected versions are before version 8.5.13, from version 8.6.0 before 8.13.5, and fro...
CVE-2021-32606
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
In the Linux kernel 5.11 through 5.12.2, isotp_setsockopt in net/can/isotp.c allows privilege escalation to root by leveraging a use-after-free. (This does not affect earlier versions that lack CAN ISOTP SF_BROADCAST support.)
CVE-2021-3504
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
A flaw was found in the hivex library in versions before 1.3.20. It is caused due to a lack of bounds check within the hivex_open function. An attacker could input a specially crafted Windows Registry (hive) file which would cause hivex to read memory beyond its normal bounds or cause the program to...
CVE-2021-20309
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
A flaw was found in ImageMagick in versions before 7.0.11 and before 6.9.12, where a division by zero in WaveImage() of MagickCore/visual-effects.c may trigger undefined behavior via a crafted image file submitted to an application using ImageMagick. The highest threat from this vulnerability is to ...
CVE-2021-20310
PUBLISHED: 2021-05-11
A flaw was found in ImageMagick in versions before 7.0.11, where a division by zero ConvertXYZToJzazbz() of MagickCore/colorspace.c may trigger undefined behavior via a crafted image file that is submitted by an attacker and processed by an application using ImageMagick. The highest threat from this...