Reading The Signals Right: Why Network Intelligence Is The Future Of Machine Learning For Payments Fraud Prevention
Today’s payments ecosystem is more open and complex than ever. New payment methods and financial products are quick to market, digital personas have become the new consumers and the speed of payments has increased significantly with accelerated digitalization. This means more opportunities for fraudsters. Financial institutions (FIs) must therefore assess risk in real time – and more efficiently than ever – but their heavily invested machine learning (ML) solutions may be challenged with a lack of history from which to learn.
ACI experts Cleber Martins, head of payments fraud solutions for banks and intermediaries, and Damon Madden, principal fraud consultant, explain what this landscape means for the future of machine learning technology and why adopting a network intelligence approach can help FIs stay ahead in the fight against fraud.
Chris Taine: Can you describe today’s payments ecosystem and some of the challenges it presents for fraud detection?
Cleber Martins: The payment ecosystem is multi-player, fast, interoperable and connected. With increased granularity, payment players in their siloes cannot see the overall picture as they react to fraud attempts. Cybercriminals, who are increasingly connected and organized, can impersonate consumers’ digital personas from anywhere. They can perpetrate fraud throughout this ecosystem, while single players are limited by what they know or have time to build. This represents rich pickings for fraudsters.
CT: And why is this a challenge for machine learning solutions?
CM: Machine learning (ML) is still the right solution, but it is only as good as the signals from which it learns. A predictive machine learning solution will learn from historical data, and the strongest signals for predicting fraud come from understanding each persona. But, if there is no profile for a new digital persona, there is neither time nor opportunity to build it before the fraud takes place. Custom approaches for ML have led to recent investments exactly because of the stronger signals that an FI could get from its own profiles, products, offers and segments.
The traditional consortium-type ML approach to collaboration comes with too many trade-offs. In addition to privacy and regulatory constraints, it can miss the value of the FI’s individual signals, which is important given each FI should maintain its individuality.
CT: What are these trade-offs?
Damon Madden: For one thing, the “one-size-fits-all” view of the consortium means the bigger members disproportionately influence the group’s perspective — despite the smaller players usually facing fraud first. But what really works against the consortium is the slow turnaround — collecting data, building it into a usable model and distributing it to the rest of the group. Relative to the lightning-fast requirements of the digital age, this approach is no longer fit-for-purpose, not to mention that privacy constraints limit the approach significantly. The new financial ecosystem Cleber described needs a new fraud protection ecosystem. Network intelligence provides that.
CT: So how is the network intelligence approach different and better?
CM: Nobody knows as much as everybody. Instead of being in a bubble, an FI becomes part of an intelligence community that facilitates consuming, exchanging and distributing risk signals. It really enables a hybrid-type ML approach that leverages the best of one another’s approaches. FIs can maintain the strength of their custom-type signals, complemented by signals exchanged with their community as well as signals from third-party fraud intelligence sources. Network intelligence connects members in the middle of their ML process, so no raw data sharing is needed, and signals are anonymized to preserve FIs and their customers. The actual ML outcome is tuned for each individual FI. Making precise risk assessments in real time about a digital persona without knowing its reputation across the ecosystem is otherwise not possible.
CT: So how would a typical transaction look under this approach?
DM: Signals are ML-specific language, built by mathematical algorithms that express risk relevance and reliability in metadata form that ML can understand and correlate with other signals. The result is more precise risk assessment. The signals need to be available for an ML solution to use: They can be pre-calculated and made available via metadata packages, stored in ML signals libraries ahead of time; provided via an API call in real time, or they can be calculated in-flight. The most relevant scenario is for those risk signals to accompany the transaction itself. In a scenario where a transaction passes through various participants within the payments ecosystem, each member can add signals to the transaction before passing to the next member. At the end of the cycle, the process will form a true DNA of risk, which uniquely expresses the many different perspectives of risk as perceived by the community.
The power comes from the signals that give each FI knowledge that they would not have on their own, ultimately protecting the entire ecosystem. Signals do not need to identify the source or even what would make it meaningful for a human; they empower the ML solution to find the most precise correlation to stop even the most complex fraud attempts, anonymously. That’s the power of ML, so network intelligence makes ML stronger than ever before. A member of the network intelligence community is connected to one or multiple hosts, so smaller communities can operate totally independently, larger communities can be formed, and there is no real limitation to the use cases that can leverage this technology and methodology to become stronger. Once in the network, members have immediate value from the next piece of risk intelligence available.
CT: What is a “network intelligence host” and what role do they play in this approach?
DM: A network intelligence host is a really novel aspect of this approach and crucial to the collaboration process. They are network members —a processor, a telco, a data bureau, some form of central infrastructure or anyone that has intelligence to enrich fraud prevention — that bring in-depth knowledge of a particular discipline to the table. That knowledge is converted into signals that provide our machine-learning models with better insights, enabling more precise decision making.
Take ACI as an example. We’re one of the largest eCommerce fraud prevention businesses, so as a network intelligence host, we enable everyone on the network to leverage the signals we build from our database and the work we do with merchants. We also help the merchants in return, by stopping fraudulent transactions before reaching the FIs, not only reducing losses, but also operational costs across the ecosystem.
CT: But how easy is it for members to integrate this approach with what they already have in place?
CM: The beauty is that the approach complements existing fraud solutions. Members of the network have a choice in what signals to adopt, how to apply them, and are informed on the relevance and reliability those signals are expected to bring to their portfolios. FIs can develop their own signals, embrace new ones in their current strategies, or build new ML strategies in mere hours (if not minutes). It’s important to note that the entire solution was developed from a business user perspective. Network intelligence and the entire methodology we’ve developed gives business users full control of their business results. This is the real democratization of machine learning, where we get the technology of artificial intelligence to work for the business, and not vice-versa.
For more on ACI’s network intelligence concept, listen again to Cleber and Damon’s deep dive in our recent webinar, Leveling Up Your Fraud Detection with Network Intelligence. You can also learn more by reading the accompanying eBook, Expanding the Horizons of Fraud Detection.
Related Blog Posts
The Role of Southeast Asia’s Central Payments Infrastructure in the Emerging Pan-Regional Network
The benefits of a real-time, cross-border payments network in Southeast Asia are clear. As the region’s economies continue to grow, a cross-border payments network will facilitate faster cross-border commerce at a lower cost.
Women in Payments: Breaking into Payments and Cybersecurity
On a virtual panel during the Women in Payments Symposium Canada, Donna Teevens, director of global information security, ACI Worldwide, joined a number of women from payments organizations including Interac, PayPal, RBC and Dentons to discuss, “The Key to Cybersecurity in a Crisis and Beyond.”
Central Infrastructure for Real-Time Payments: Overcoming the Final Hurdle [Mastercard Q&A]
Traditionally, Sibos has been focused on high-value cross-border payments, but – as with so much of 2020 – times are changing. High- and low-value cross-border payments are converging, and the rich-data standards that are emerging for real-time payments will further accelerate this trend. The big challenge will be, how do we deliver on the promise of end-to-end, global real-time payments?
The Two Sides of Payments Modernization in Asia: Real-Time and Financial Inclusion
Home to nearly 60 percent of the world’s population, as well as some of the most dynamic and diverse markets, the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region plays a critical role in shaping the world economy. The diversity of the region is also evident in its payments landscape, with almost every country forging its own path towards payments modernization.
Payments in a Post-Coronavirus World: How the Pandemic Is Influencing Tomorrow’s Industry in Latin America
While the novel coronavirus has (understandably) dominated the day-to-day focus of today’s payment players, the fact is, at some point we will either fully adapt or be living in a post-coronavirus world. How can our industry prepare? In a recent webinar hosted by Fintech Americas, we brought together experts from Redeban Multicolor, Red Link and PROSA to explore where they see the industry going – with a specific emphasis on Latin American markets – and what they’re doing to ensure future success.
Central Infrastructure for Real-Time Payments: Overcoming the Final Hurdle [Mastercard Q&A]
The modernization of cross-border payments has brought transparency, certainty and speed to international business. However, the long-term success of new innovations, such as SWIFT gpi and Universal Confirmations, hinge upon real-time, end-to-end, data-rich transaction flows.
Could COVID-19 Be India’s Cashless Catalyst?
India’s push towards a digital economy has accelerated over the years, with a supportive regulatory environment, home-grown technologies and innovation around digital infrastructure improving “last mile” connectivity to the remote towns and rural areas of the country. While the “Digital India” drive has been consistent, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought out the true value of digitization for businesses and consumers alike. It is a watershed moment and has fast-tracked the pace of digital adoption, particularly for payments, which now plays a critical role in economic recovery.
The Nordics’ P27 Initiative: Payments in Uncharted Waters
The advance of real-time payments around the world seems unstoppable, with 45 schemes currently live and a further 13 (at the time of writing) in the planning stages. In Europe, the Nordics’ P27 initiative – the world’s first integrated multi-country, multi-currency, real-time payments platform spanning Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway – promises to make headlines as it takes payments into uncharted waters.
The Pandemic Has Accelerated the New Era of Acquiring
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many trends already taking shape in consumer purchasing behavior. Almost overnight, routine activities ranging from picking up groceries to buying gas unexpectedly became something that they had never been before – risky.