Systems and methods for performing scoring optimization

• US 10,290,054 B2
• Filed: 06/23/2014
• Issued: 05/14/2019
• Est. Priority Date: 08/26/2005
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JP Morgan Chase & Co)
• Original Assignee: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JP Morgan Chase & Co)
• Inventors: Hong, Xiao, Song, Xiaolan, Dong, Xin, Fei, Huchen, Wang, Lihua
• Primary Examiner(s): Wong, Eric T
• Assistant Examiner(s): Poe, Kevin T
• Application Number:
  US14/311,821
• Publication Number:
  US 20140304146A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,786 Days
• Field of Search: 705 38
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/00 Finance; Insurance; Tax strategies; Processing of corporate or income taxes
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/02 Banking, e.g. interest calculation or account maintenance credit or loans G06Q40/03
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/03 Credit; Loans; Processing thereof

Abstract

The invention provides systems and methods relating to generating a unified determination based on subdetermination, and in particular, generating a unified score based on respective scores. For example, the invention provides a method for generating a unified determination based on subdeterminations, the method including generating a first subdetermination based on first criteria; generating a second subdetermination based on second criteria; and generating a unified determination based on the first subdetermination and the second subdetermination. The generation of the unified determination includes (a) assigning, using iterative processing, an assigned weighting respectively to the first determination and second determination; (b) determining if the assigned weighting satisfies at least one constraint; (c) comparing the assigned weighting to an optimized weighting, which was previously determined, to determine if the assigned weighting is improved over the optimized weighting; and (d) if the assigned weighting is improved, then assigning the assigned weighting to be the optimized weighting.

Claims

1. A system for generating a unified determination based on subdeterminations, the system including:

a first score processor generating a first subdetermination based on first criteria, wherein the first criteria is a front end risk score, and wherein the front end risk score determines if an individual is to be mailed an offer for a financial product;

a second score processor generating a second subdetermination based on second criteria, wherein the second criteria is a back end risk score, and wherein the back end risk score determines if the individual, who is a respondent to the offer, is to be extended the financial product;

a combination score processor generating a unified determination based on the first subdetermination and the second subdetermination, the combination score processor including;

an iteration control portion assigning, using iterative processing, an assigned weighting respectively to the first determination and second determination;

a comparison portion comparing the assigned weighting to an optimized weighting, which was previously determined, to determine if the assigned weighting is improved over the optimized weighting; and

if the assigned weighting is improved, then the comparison portion assigning the assigned weighting to be the optimized weighting;

wherein the first subdetermination is a first score, and the second subdetermination is a second score;

wherein the comparison portion comparing the assigned weighting to an optimized weighting to determine if the assigned weighting is improved over the optimized weighting includes;

using a first relationship including first parameters to generate a first result, the first parameters including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the assigned weighting and a first objective parameter; and

using a second relationship including second parameters to generate a second result, the second parameters including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the optimized weighting and the first objective parameter, and

comparing the first result to the second result; and

the system constituted by a tangibly embodied computer processing machine.

2. The system of claim 1, the system further including a feasibility determination portion, and

the feasibility determination portion determining if the assigned weighting satisfies at least one constraint.

3. The system of claim 2, wherein the feasibility determination portion determining if the assigned weighting satisfies at least one constraint is performed using a first relationship including parameters, and comparing a result of the first relationship with a first constraint value.

4. The system of claim 3, wherein the determining if the assigned weighting satisfies at least one constraint is performed using a second relationship including parameters, and comparing a result of the second relationship with a second constraint value.

5. The system of claim 4, the parameters of the first relationship including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the assigned weighting and a first objective parameter.

6. The system of claim 5, the parameters of the second relationship including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the assigned weighting and a second objective parameter.

7. The system of claim 3, the parameters of the first relationship including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the assigned weighting and a first objective parameter.

8. The system of claim 1, wherein the financial product is a credit card.

9. The system of claim 1, further including the system:

inputting information from a credit bureau entity; and

generating the first score and the second score based on the information input from the credit bureau entity.

10. The system of claim 9, including the system securing information from an applicant for a credit card;

and

the system using the information from the Applicant for the credit card to generate the second score.

11. The system of claim 1, wherein the first result and the second result are computed by the system using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic.

12. The system of claim 1, further including the system using a second objective parameter in determining the first result and the second result.

13. The system of claim 1, wherein the iterative processing is effected by the system using a progressing value, the progressing value being advanced after (a) the determining if the assigned weighting satisfies at least one constraint, and (b) comparing the assigned weighting to the optimized weighting.

14. The system of claim 13, wherein the progressing value is advanced until the progressing value attains a threshold value, which marks the final iteration.

15. The system of claim 13, wherein the assigning, using iterative processing, the assigned weighting respectively to the first determination and second determination includes utilizing a random number generator to assign the weighting.

16. A method for generating a unified determination based on subdeterminations, the method performed by a tangibly embodied computer processing machine, the method including:

generating, by the computer processing machine, a first subdetermination based on first criteria, wherein the first criteria is a front end risk score, and wherein the front end risk score determines if an individual is to be mailed an offer for a financial product;

generating, by the computer processing machine, a second subdetermination based on second criteria, wherein the second criteria is a back end risk score, and wherein the back end risk score determines if the individual, who is a respondent to the offer, is to be extended the financial product;

generating, by the computer processing machine, a unified determination based on the first subdetermination and the second subdetermination including;

assigning, by the computer processing machine, using iterative processing, an assigned weighting respectively to the first determination and second determination;

comparing, by the computer processing machine, the assigned weighting to an optimized weighting, which was previously determined, to determine if the assigned weighting is improved over the optimized weighting; and

if the assigned weighting is improved, then assigning the assigned weighting to be the optimized weighting;

wherein the first subdetermination is a first score, and the second subdetermination is a second score;

wherein the comparing the assigned weighting to an optimized weighting to determine if the assigned weighting is improved over the optimized weighting includes;

using a first relationship including first parameters to generate a first result, the first parameters including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the assigned weighting and a first objective parameter; and

using a second relationship including second parameters to generate a second result, the second parameters including the first subdetermination, the second subdetermination, the optimized weighting and the first objective parameter, and

comparing the first result to the second result.