IP Library Granted Patent US 12,725,105
Granted Patent B2
US 12,725,105 · App. 18/345,964 · Granted Sep 1, 2026

Early warning for issue validation failure using machine learning model

Inventors: Michael Goodwin (Arlington, TX); Xiangchen Huo (Dallas, TX); Antonio Iniguez (Mesa, AZ); Brian Karp (Denver, CO); Jody Vandever (Earlham, IA); Robin Baldeo (Charlotte, NC); Sooji Ha (Moorestown, NJ); Efa Shukarey (Woodbury, MN); Prashamsh Takkalapally (Cumming, GA); Tsai-Hsuan Tsai (Harrison, NJ)
Assignee: Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
G06Q10/0635
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,725,105
App. No.
18/345,964
Granted
Sep 1, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

A computing system receives issue data for a plurality of issues from a risk management system. The issue data for each respective issue of the plurality of issues includes an issue identifier. The computing system generates issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues. An issue validation risk score for the respective issue indicates a predicted probability that a resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within a fixed period of time. The computing system generates a warning message for at least the respective issue of the plurality of issues based on the issue validation risk score for the respective issue being greater than a threshold. The computing system revises parameters of the at least one machine learning model based on validation failure outcomes associated with the plurality of issues.

Claims (46)

1 . A method comprising:

receiving, by a computing system, issue data for a plurality of issues each related to at least one of governance or compliance associated with a policy from a risk management system, wherein the issue data for each respective issue of the plurality of issues includes an issue identifier;

generating, by the computing system using at least one machine learning model and based on the issue data, issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues, wherein an issue validation risk score for the respective issue indicates a predicted probability that a resolution of the respective issue to satisfy the policy will fail validation within a fixed period of time;

generating a warning message for at least the respective issue of the plurality of issues based on the issue validation risk score for the respective issue being greater than a threshold;

tagging, by the computing system, the respective issue of the warning message for use as a feature input for training the at least one machine learning model;

updating, by the computing system, training data to include the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue, wherein the training data includes monitored validation failure outcomes associated with one or more issues of the plurality of issues for which warning messages were generated, and wherein the training data is used to train the at least one machine learning model;

determining, by the computing system, one or more features corresponding to a level of modified organizational attention applied to the tagged respective issue in response to the warning message; and

revising, by the computing system and as part of training the at least one machine learning model using the updated training data that includes the monitored validation failure outcomes and the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue, parameters of the at least one machine learning model, wherein revising the parameters of the at least one machine learning model includes:

retuning hyperparameters of the at least one machine learning model using the monitored validation failure outcomes and the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue included in the updated training data and based on the one or more features corresponding to the level of modified organizational attention applied to the tagged respective issue.

2 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising generating data representative of a dashboard for display via a display device, wherein the dashboard indicates one or more issue identifiers of one or more issues of the plurality of issues along with the issue validation risk scores associated with the one or more issues, and wherein the dashboard further indicates a ranking of the one or more issues based on the issue validation risk scores associated with the one or more issues.

3 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising generating, by the computing system using at least one second machine learning model, second issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues, wherein a second issue validation risk score for the respective issue indicates a predicted probability that the resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within a second fixed period of time, wherein the second fixed period of time is longer than the fixed period of time.

4 . The method of claim 3 , wherein generating the second issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues comprises generating the second issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues in parallel with generating the issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the at least one machine learning model is a random forest model that includes an ensemble of predictive elements, wherein each predictive element determines whether the resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within the fixed period of time based on one or more features of the issue data for the respective issue, and wherein the issue validation risk score for the respective issue comprises a percentage of the predictive elements that determined that the resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within the fixed period of time.

6 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising preprocessing, by the computing system, the issue data for the plurality of issues, wherein preprocessing includes creating one or more variables from raw data of the issue data for the plurality of issues, wherein the one or more variables include one or more of numeric, categorical, or text variables.

7 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising processing, by the computing system, one or more variables created from the issue data for the plurality of issues into one or more features used as input to the at least one machine learning model, wherein processing includes performing feature extraction on the one or more variables.

8 . The method of claim 7 , wherein performing feature extraction includes generating text features as term frequency-inverse document frequency (TFIDF) vectors from text variables created from the issue data for the plurality of issues, wherein the TFIDF vectors comprise numeric presentations of the text variables.

9 . The method of claim 7 , wherein performing feature extraction includes generating numeric features by imputing and scaling numeric variables created from the issue data for the plurality of issues.

10 . The method of claim 7 , wherein performing feature extraction includes generating categorical features by encoding categorical variables created from the issue data for the plurality of issues.

11 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising monitoring performance of the at least one machine learning model over time, wherein monitoring performance includes monitoring validation failure outcomes for the one or more issues of the plurality of issues for which warning messages were generated to determine the monitored validation failure outcomes, and wherein the monitored validation failure outcomes further comprise one or more of failed validations or passed validations.

12 . A computing system comprising:

one or more storage devices; and

processing circuitry in communication with the one or more storage devices, the processing circuitry configured to:

receive issue data for a plurality of issues each related to at least one of governance or compliance associated with a policy from a risk management system, wherein the issue data for each respective issue of the plurality of issues includes an issue identifier;

generate, using at least one machine learning model and based on the issue data, issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues, wherein an issue validation risk score for the respective issue indicates a predicted probability that a resolution of the respective issue to satisfy the policy will fail validation within a fixed period of time;

generate a warning message for at least the respective issue of the plurality of issues based on the issue validation risk score for the respective issue being greater than a threshold;

tag the respective issue of the warning message for use as a feature input for training the at least one machine learning model;

update training data to include the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue, wherein the training data includes monitored validation failure outcomes associated with one or more issues of the plurality of issues for which warning messages were generated, and wherein the training data is used to train the at least one machine learning model;

determine one or more features corresponding to a level of modified organizational attention applied to the tagged respective issue in response to the warning message; and

revise, as part of training the at least one machine learning model using the updated training data that includes the monitored validation failure outcomes and the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue, parameters of the at least one machine learning model, wherein to revise the parameters of the at least one machine learning model, the processing circuitry is configured to:

retune hyperparameters of the at least one machine learning model using the monitored validation failure outcomes and the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue included in the updated training data and based on the one or more features corresponding to the level of modified organizational attention applied to the tagged respective issue.

13 . The computing system of claim 12 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate data representative of a dashboard for display via a display device, wherein the dashboard indicates one or more issue identifiers of one or more issues of the plurality of issues along with the issue validation risk scores associated with the one or more issues, and wherein the dashboard further indicates a ranking of the one or more issues based on the issue validation risk scores associated with the one or more issues.

14 . The computing system of claim 12 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to

generate, using at least one second machine learning model, second issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues, wherein a second issue validation risk score for the respective issue indicates a predicted probability that the resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within a second fixed period of time, wherein the second fixed period of time is longer than the fixed period of time.

15 . The computing system of claim 14 , wherein to generate the second issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues, the processing circuitry is configured to generate the second issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues in parallel with generation of the issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues.

16 . The computing system of claim 12 , wherein the at least one machine learning model is a random forest model that includes an ensemble of predictive elements, wherein each predictive element determines whether the resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within the fixed period of time based on one or more features of the issue data for the respective issue, and wherein the issue validation risk score for the respective issue comprises a percentage of the predictive elements that determined that the resolution of the respective issue will fail validation within the fixed period of time.

17 . The computing system of claim 12 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to preprocess the issue data for the plurality of issues, wherein to preprocess the issue data, the processing circuitry is configured to create one or more variables from raw data of the issue data for the plurality of issues, wherein the one or more variables include one or more of numeric, categorical, or text variables.

18 . The computing system of claim 12 , wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to process one or more variables created from the issue data for the plurality of issues into one or more features used as input to the at least one machine learning model, wherein to process the one or more variables, the processing circuitry is configured to perform feature extraction on the one or more variables.

19 . A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause processing circuitry to:

receive issue data for a plurality of issues each related to at least one of governance or compliance associated with a policy from a risk management system, wherein the issue data for each respective issue of the plurality of issues includes an issue identifier;

generate, using at least one machine learning model and based on the issue data, issue validation risk scores for the plurality of issues, wherein an issue validation risk score for the respective issue indicates a predicted probability that a resolution of the respective issue to satisfy the policy will fail validation within a fixed period of time;

generate a warning message for at least the respective issue of the plurality of issues based on the issue validation risk score for the respective issue being greater than a threshold;

tag the respective issue of the warning message for use as a feature input for training the at least one machine learning model;

update training data to include the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue, wherein the training data includes monitored validation failure outcomes associated with one or more issues of the plurality of issues for which warning messages were generated, and wherein the training data is used to train the at least one machine learning model;

determine one or more features corresponding to a level of modified organizational attention applied to the tagged respective issue in response to the warning message; and

revise, as part of training the at least one machine learning model using the updated training data that includes the monitored validation failure outcomes and the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue, parameters of the at least one machine learning model, wherein to revise the parameters of the at least one machine learning model, the processing circuitry is configured to:

retune hyperparameters of the at least one machine learning model using the monitored validation failure outcomes and the feature input associated with the tagged respective issue included in the updated training data and based on the one or more features corresponding to the level of modified organizational attention applied to the tagged respective issue.

Assignments (2)
REQUEST FOR ADDRESS CHANGE Recorded Dec 5, 2025
From: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
To: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Reel/Frame 073896/0195 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 15, 2024
From: GOODWIN, MICHAEL; HUO, XIANGCHEN; INIGUEZ, ANTONIO; KARP, BRIAN; VANDEVER, JODY; BALDEO, ROBIN; HA, SOOJI; SHUKAREY, EFA; TAKKALAPALLY, PRASHAMSH; TSAI, TSAI-HSUAN
To: WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
Reel/Frame 067421/0242 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20250005491A1 · Jan 2, 2025
References Cited (65)
US 7827468B2 · Kato et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7836378B2 · Shaeffer et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 8630886B2 · White · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 8856370B2 · Staiger · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 9548987B1 · Poole · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 9552548B1 · Brestoff · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 9824364B2 · Galligan Davila et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10304014B2 · Garza et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10769722B1 · Flowers · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10872206B2 · Snyder et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 10902199B2 · Dunn et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11010702B1 · Shah · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 11468369B1 · Wilson et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11475493B2 · Acharya et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11501255B2 · Mann et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20030050814A1 · Stoneking · 2003 [cited by examiner]
US 20060143034A1 · Rothermel · 2006 [cited by examiner]
US 20070016542A1 · Rosauer et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20090006156A1 · Hunt · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20090234684A1 · Stoke · 2009 [cited by examiner]
US 20110004574A1 · Jeong · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20120030079A1 · Slater · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20120259752A1 · Agee · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20120303389A1 · Friedman · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20130298230A1 · Kumar · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20130325763A1 · Cantor et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20160371618A1 · Leidner · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20160373478A1 · Doubleday et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20170357901A1 · La Placa · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20180089694A1 · Clark · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180203754A1 · Beohar · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20200273046A1 · Biswas · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200279334A1 · Billings · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200364618A1 · Peh · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210035159A1 · Zhou et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210042866A1 · Shanahan · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210055417A1 · Brokaw · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210124983A1 · Axenie et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210383927A1 · Godden et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220027744A1 · Krishnan et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220101186A1 · Sharma Mittal et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220108240A1 · Liposky · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220261711A1 · Krishna · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220286482A1 · Barday · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 20220327012A1 · Roy et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220335362A1 · Nikain et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230385735A1 · Ghosh · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20240086818A1 · Yarlagadda · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240232765A1 · Austraat · 2024 [cited by examiner]
EP 4033421A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
WO 2022058997A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
N Polyzotis, M Zinkevich, S Roy et al. (Data validation for machine learning)— . . . of machine learning . . . , 2019—proceedings.mlsys.org (hereinafter Roy et al.). (Year: 2019). [cited by examiner]
A Alonso Robisco et al. (Measuring the model risk-adjusted performance of machine) SpringerOpen · 2022 (hereinafter Robisco et al.). (Year: 2022). [cited by examiner]
Guidi et al., “Random Forest for Automatic Assessment of Heart Failure Severity in a Telemonitoring Scenario”, 2013 35th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, IEEE, Jul… [cited by applicant]
Sheng-Yuan, “A Hybrid Due-Date fulfilled Forecasting Based on Clustering and Decision trees”, 2010 IEEE 17th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, IEEE, Oct. 29, 2010, pp. 6-11, … [cited by applicant]
Sulaiman et al., “The Quantitative Features Analysis of the Nonlinear Model of Crop Production by Hybrid Soft Computing Paradigm”, Agronomy, MDPI, Mar. 26, 2022, 18 pp., URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/12/4/799. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922, filed Jun. 30, 2023, naming inventors Goodwin et al. [cited by applicant]
Yuan et al., “A Single Machine Preemptive Scheduling Problem with Arbitrary Release Dates and Fuzzy Due Dates”, 2009 ISECS International Colloquium on Computing, Communication, Control, and Management, vol. 2, Aug. 8, 2… [cited by applicant]
Response to Office Action dated May 8, 2025 from U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922, filed Aug. 8, 2025, 11 pp. [cited by applicant]
Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922 dated May 8, 2025, 38 pp. [cited by applicant]
Robisco et al., “Measuring the model risk-adjusted performance of machine learning algorithms in credit default prediction”, Financial Innovation, vol. 8, No. 70, Dec. 2022, 35 pp. [cited by applicant]
Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922 dated Sep. 17, 2025, 36 pp. [cited by applicant]
Response to Office Action dated Sep. 17, 2025 from U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922, filed Nov. 17, 2025, 11 pp. [cited by applicant]
Corrected Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922 dated Mar. 30, 2026, 2 pp. [cited by applicant]
Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 18/345,922 dated Mar. 20, 2026, 21 pp. [cited by applicant]