A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material to which a claim for copyright is made. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but reserves all other copyright rights whatsoever.
There is need for a computer-based semantic analysis system for ranking search results wherein the search query seeks to find first documents authored by persons with content about themselves that have a significant discrepancy with second documents that have content about said persons. The second documents may be authored by the persons themselves or by other persons that are different than said persons.
The summary of the invention is provided as a guide to understanding the invention. It does not necessarily describe the most generic embodiment of the invention or the broadest range of alternative embodiments.
The detailed description describes non-limiting exemplary embodiments. Any individual features may be combined with other features as required by different applications for at least the benefits described herein.
As used herein, the term “about” means plus or minus 10% of a given value unless specifically indicated otherwise.
As used herein, a “computer-based system” comprises an input device for receiving data, an output device for outputting data in tangible form (e.g. printing or displaying on a computer screen), a permanent memory for storing data as well as computer code, and a microprocessor or other type of digital processor for executing computer code wherein said computer code resident in said permanent memory will physically cause said microprocessor to read in data via said input device, process said data by said microprocessor and output said processed data via said output device.
An input device may be any device adapted to receive input and, if needed, convert said input to computer usable form (e.g. digital encoding). Input devices include keyboards, cameras, microphones and digital inputs for receiving data from other computer-based systems.
An output device may be any device adapted to output data. Output devices include computer screens, speakers, printers and digital output devices for sending data to other computer-based systems.
As used herein, a formula or equation is only an expression of an algorithm or method. For example, the formula “Y=A+B” is an expression of the prose algorithm “Set the value of Y equal to the value of A plus the value of B”. A person of ordinary skill in the art of computer science will understand that said prose algorithms can be expressed as a series of one or more steps of a computer coded algorithm. As used herein, therefore, an equation or formula is not an expression of an abstract idea, a law of nature or any other fundamental truth.
Multiple search results can be ranked according to the method illustrated in
As used herein, “ranking from high score to low score” also encompasses ranking from low score to high score. For example, if one determines a score equal to the inverse of the score described herein, then ranking would be from low inverse score to high inverse score.
The constant D as described above may have a value less than zero. D may have a value of about −0.00138.
As used herein, a “minimized value” is a value that is reduced from an initial level to a subsequent lower level. It does not necessarily mean that a given value is at its lowest possible level.
As used herein, an “aggregate weighting factor” may include multiple values of the aggregate weighting factor for different values of N over a range of N. Hence multiple values of the aggregate weighting factor for a range of values of N may be automatically adjusted so that the sum of squares of the residuals has a minimized value.
As used herein, an “adjudication” is an independent assessment of whether or not there is a significant discrepancy between the content of a second document and the content of a first document. The independent assessment may be performed automatically at least in part by a computer-based system, performed at least in part by a person, or a combination of both. For the purposes of computation, an adjudication may have a numerical value of 1 when there is a significant discrepancy and a numerical value of 0 when there is not a significant discrepancy. Alternatively, an adjudication may have a fractional value between 0 and 1 when the adjudication is an independent estimate of the probability of there being a significant discrepancy.
As used herein, a probability may be expressed in any units, such as fractional (i.e. 0 to 1) or percentage (i.e. 0% to 100%). Thus, any particular units (e.g. fractional) recited herein encompass all units (e.g. percentage).
It has been discovered that the methods described herein are effective at determining if there is a likelihood of a significant discrepancy between the content of a first document authored by a person at a first time and a second document with content about the person authored at a later time. The first document might be an application form. The application form may be one or more of a job application, an application for citizenship, an insurance claim, a posting on a dating web site, an application for security clearance, a loan application, a patent application or any document authored by a person that is to be submitted to a third party for an approval.
A person submitting an application form to a third party for approval may be motivated to withhold information or falsify information in order to secure said approval. The third party, therefore, has need to find out if the information in the application form is consistent with other information about the person that might be in a second document either authored by the same person or another person. Second documents may include social media postings by the same person, a blog posting by another person or any other document in any other medium. If the application form is for an insurance claim related to a loss event suffered by the person (e.g. an on-the-job injury), then it may be desirable for the second document to be authored after the first document or at least after the loss event since the insurance claim attests to a change in health of the person.
A third party may have a list of indicator terms that, if found in a second document, indicate that there is a discrepancy between the content of the second document and the content of the first document. The loss terms may be specific to the type of application form and the contents of the application form. Referring to
Second documents authored before the purported change in health may be examined to determine if the adverse health condition of the person existed before the alleged injury. The indicator terms, therefore, may be different depending upon whether the second document was authored before or after the first document. The indicator terms may also be different depending upon the nature of the alleged injury.
The third party may have a large number of similar application forms to automatically process in a short period of time. The third party, therefore, may develop a list 130 (
Any method, including human judgment, may be used to develop an initial set of indicators and weighting factors. The weighting factors may be adjusted over time, however, as additional data becomes available. This is an example of machine learning.
To execute the method 600, a set of one hundred workers' compensation insurance claims (i.e. first documents) from one hundred claimants 702 (i.e. persons in a set of persons) were adjudicated 712 to determine which claims were legitimate (i.e. accepted applications as indicated by a “0”) and which claims were not (i.e. applications not accepted as indicated by a “1”). The results were read in to the computer-based semantic analysis system 100. The system then accessed the social media sites of the persons submitting the insurance claims and identified second documents authored after the dates of the claims. The second documents had content about the persons. The system also read in a list 704 of six indicator terms from a permanent memory. The list of indicator terms comprised the terms “baseball”, “gym”, “hiking”, “running”, “tennis”, and “weekend”. Other indicator terms could have been included as well. The system then read in initial values of associated indicator weighting factors 722, the parameter A 718 and the constant D 716. The system then determined if the indicator terms were (“1”) or were not (“0”) found 705 in the second documents. The system then determined to total number N of indicator terms found in each 706 of the second documents. The system then calculated risk factors 708 for each person and associated probabilities 710 per the methods described above. The system then calculated the squares (e.g. 728, 726, 724) of the residuals between the adjudications and the probabilities. The system then determined the sum 714 of the squares of the residuals. The system then automatically adjusted the indicator weighting factors, the parameter A and the constant D used to calculate the aggregate weighting factors versus N so that the sum of squares of the residuals had a minimized value (i.e. a magnitude lower than its initial value). The final results of the minimization are shown in table 700.
In order to facilitate code writing, the methods described herein may be compactly expressed as formulas. Since formulas are only used to express methods in a compact form, they are not expressions of fundamental truths or laws of nature. For example, the method 300 of determining a semantic ranking may be expressed as:
where
where the variables are defined above. Any method that decreases CN over a range of N, however, can be used. A CN that decreases from 1 at N=1 to 0.8 or less at N=2 is suitable. Physically, a decreasing CN with increasing N means that each additional indicator term found in a second document adds incrementally less to the overall score that what one would expect if the indicator weights were merely summed without the aggregate weighting factor.
The method steps 502 to 506 of determining a probability P′ of there being a significant discrepancy between the content of a second document and the content of a first document can be expressed as:
where the variables are defined above.
The method steps 502 to 506 are an example of an asymptotic transformation. As used herein, an asymptotic transformation is a transformation of an increasing variable to a variable with a finite upper limit, such as 1. Any asymptotic transformation may be used to convert a score into a probability. This includes an exponential transformation.
The methods described in Example 1 were repeated with a larger sample for 5,288 workers' compensation insurance claims. All claims were adjudicated to determine if they were legitimate (i.e. no significant discrepancy) or fraudulent (i.e. significant discrepancy). 2,330 of the claims were confirmed to have a significant discrepancy. The social media data (i.e. second documents) for the claimants (i.e. persons in a set of persons) was read in and compared to a list of 59 indicator terms. 2,126 of the claimants had one or more indicator terms in their social media data and had scores above a threshold. The social media data was all authored subsequent to the time of injury listed on the insurance claims. 1,770 of the claims that had scores above the threshold were adjudicated as having a significant discrepancy. 356 of the claims with scores above the threshold were adjudicated not having a significant discrepancy. Thus, the overall false positive rate of claims with scores above the threshold was about 356/2126=16.7%.
3,162 of the claims did not have an indicator term in the associated social media data (i.e. second documents) and hence had scores below the threshold. 630 of these claims were adjudicated as having a significant discrepancy. 2,532 of these claims were adjudicated as not having a significant discrepancy. Thus, the false negative rate of claims without an indicator term was about 630/3162=19.9%.
A desired probability may be selected depending upon the relative costs of false positives and false negatives so that the overall operating cost of the system is minimized.
The solid line 906 shows the calculated probability of a significant discrepancy using the methods described herein with an aggregate weighting factor that decreased with increasing N. The agreement between the calculated solid line and the adjudicated data points is good.
The dashed line 904 shows the calculated probability without an aggregate weighting factor. Without an aggregate weighting factor that decreased with increasing N, the calculated probability of a significant discrepancy is increasingly over estimated relative to the adjudicated data as N increases.
While the disclosure has been described with reference to one or more different exemplary embodiments, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the disclosure. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt to a particular situation without departing from the essential scope or teachings thereof. For example, as used herein, an “indicator term” may be a word, phrase, number, concept, static image, moving image, sound or any other content. A “document” can be any record in any medium, such as a video, social media posting, handwritten document on paper, or digital image. Therefore, it is intended that the disclosure not be limited to the particular embodiments disclosed as the best mode contemplated for carrying out this invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5745654 | Titan | Apr 1998 | A |
6417801 | van Diggelen | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6937187 | van Diggelen et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
7693705 | Jamieson | Apr 2010 | B1 |
7813944 | Luk | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7827045 | Madill, Jr. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
8036978 | Saavedra-Lim | Oct 2011 | B1 |
8041597 | Li et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8255244 | Raines et al. | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8370279 | Lin et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8498931 | Abrahams et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8533224 | Lin et al. | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8744897 | Christiansen et al. | Jun 2014 | B2 |
8799190 | Stokes et al. | Aug 2014 | B2 |
9286301 | Motoyama | Mar 2016 | B2 |
10121071 | Coleman et al. | Nov 2018 | B2 |
10192253 | Huet | Jan 2019 | B2 |
20050240858 | Croft | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060136273 | Zizzamia et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060224492 | Pinkava | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070050215 | Kill et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070282775 | Tingling | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080077451 | Anthony et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080109272 | Sheopuri | May 2008 | A1 |
20080227075 | Poor | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20100063852 | Toll | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100131305 | Collopy et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100145734 | Becerra et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100299161 | Burdick et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110015948 | Adams | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110077977 | Collins | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110191310 | Liao | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20130226623 | Diana | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130339220 | Kremen et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20130340082 | Shanley | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140058763 | Zizzamia | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140059073 | Zhao et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140114694 | Krause | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140129261 | Bothwell et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140172417 | Monk, II | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20150220862 | De Vries | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20150310096 | Bao | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20170116179 | Gagne-Langevin | Apr 2017 | A1 |
20170243129 | Kephart et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20180011827 | Avery | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180089155 | Baron | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180096055 | Houser et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180300351 | Glover | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180349357 | Allen et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190034798 | Yu et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2010109645 | Sep 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Curt De Vries, et al., Provisional U.S. Appl. No. 61/935,922, “System and Method for Automated Detection of Insurance Fraud” dated Feb. 5, 2014. |
International Risk Management Institute, Inc., Event Risk Insurance Glossary, http://www.irmi.com/online/insurance-glossary/terms/e/event-risk.aspx., Jul. 24, 2015. |
Wikipedia.com, Global Positioning System, viewed Sep. 26, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System. |
Tata Consultancy Services Limited and Novarica, Big Data and Analytics in Insurance on Aug. 9, 2012. |
Francis Analytics and Actuarial Data Mining, Inc., Predictive Modeling in Workers Compensation 2008 CAS Ratemaking Seminar. |
Hendrix, Leslie; “Elementary Statistics for the Biological and Life Sciences”, course notes University of Sout Carolina, Spring 2012. |
Rooseveral C. Mosley, Jr., Social Media Analytics: Data Mining Applied to Insurance Twitter Posts, Casualty Actuarial Society E-Forum, Winter 2012—vol. 2. |
SAS Institute Inc., Combating Insurance Claims Fraud How to Recognize and Reduce Opportunisitc and Organized Claims Fraud White Paper, 2010. |
Tata Consultancy Services, Fraud Analytics Solution for Insurance, 2013. |
The Claims Spot, 3 Perspectives On The Use Of Social Media In The Claims Invetigation Process, Oct. 25, 2010, http://theclaimsspot.com/2010/10/25/3-perspectives-on-the-use-of-social-media-in-the-claims-investigation-process/; Oct. 25, 2010. |
Pinnacle Acturial Resources, Inc., Social Media Analytics Data Mining Applied to Insurance Twitter Posts; Apr. 16, 2013. |
Wikipedia, Spokeo, Mar. 10, 2014. |
Lora Kolodny, Gary Kremen's New Venture, Socigramics, Wants to Make Banking Human Again, http://blogs.wsj.com/venturecapital/2012/02/24/gary-kremens-new-venture-sociogramics-raises-2m-to-make-banking-human-again/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%253A%252F%252Fblogs.wsj.com%252Fventurecapital%252F2012%252F02%252F24%252Fgary-kremens-new-ventu; Feb. 24, 2012. |
Stijn Viaene, ScienceDirect European Journal of Operational Research 176 (2007) 565-583, Strategies for detecting fraudulent claims in the automobile insurance industry, www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor, viewed Oct. 20, 2015. |
Lucy Carmel, TheLaw.TV, Social Media's Role in Workers' Comp Claims, dated Feb. 27, 2013. |
David P. Doane and Lori E. Seward, Measuring Skewness: A Forgoten Statistic?, Journal of Statistics Education, vol. 19, No. 2(2011). |
English translation of WO2010109645 A1, Subject Identifying Method, Subject Identifying Program, and Subject Identifying Device. |
Google Search “read in data”, https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=“read+in+data”, Mar. 11, 2015. |