IP Library Granted Patent US 12,475,372
Granted Patent B2
US 12,475,372 · App. 18/606,493 · Granted Nov 18, 2025

Machine-learning techniques involving monotonic recurrent neural networks

Inventors: Jonathan Boardman (Marietta, GA); Xiao Huang (Marietta, GA)
Assignee: EQUIFAX INC.
G06N3/08G06F17/16G06N3/048
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 12,475,372
App. No.
18/606,493
Granted
Nov 18, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Various aspects involve a monotonic recurrent neural network (MRNN) trained for risk assessment or other purposes. For instance, the MRNN is trained to compute a risk indicator from a predictor variable. Training the MRNN includes adjusting weights of nodes of the MRNN subject to a set of monotonicity constraints, wherein the set of monotonicity constraints causes output risk indicators computed by the RNN to be a monotonic function of input predictor variables. The trained monotonic RNN can be used to generate an output risk indicator for a target entity.

Claims (69)

1 . A system comprising:

a first computing system configured for:

receiving, from a second computing system, a risk assessment query that identifies a target entity,

providing a predictor variable for the target entity to a recurrent neural network (RNN),

computing, with the RNN, an output risk indicator from the predictor variable, the RNN having one or more layers of nodes that are interconnected, the nodes comprising one or more hidden states having stored values based on predictor values in the predictor variable, the nodes having weights causing output risk indicators of the RNN to be a monotonic function of input predictor variables that are input into the RNN,

wherein a loss function of the RNN includes a mapping function for adjusting one or more of the weights of the nodes of the RNN, wherein the mapping function adjusts the weights of the nodes during training to minimize the loss function of the RNN subject to a set of monotonicity constraints comprising (i) a set of activation functions with derivatives that are nonnegative and (ii) a set of nonnegative weight matrices in which at least one weight value of at least one weight matrix is adjusted by the mapping function during the training, and

transmitting the output risk indicator to the second computing system; and

the second computing system, wherein the second computing system is communicatively coupled to the first computing system and is configured for controlling, based on the output risk indicator, access by the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments.

2 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the first computing system is further configured for training the RNN by performing training operations comprising:

accessing training samples comprising training predictor variables and training risk indicators corresponding to the training predictor variables; and

adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints, wherein the set of monotonicity constraints causes the output risk indicators computed by the RNN to be a monotonic function of the input predictor variables that are input into the RNN.

3 . The system of claim 2 , the training operations further comprising:

computing, with the RNN, an updated value of an updated hidden state of the one or more hidden states as a first activation function of the set of activation functions applied to a first function, the first function comprising (i) a first weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by the predictor variable for the target entity and (ii) a second weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by a stored value of a hidden state of the one or more hidden states,

wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN to minimize the loss function of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints comprises:

adjusting first weight values in the first weight matrix, wherein each cell of the first weight matrix is nonnegative, and

adjusting second weight values in the second weight matrix, wherein each cell of the second weight matrix is nonnegative.

4 . The system of claim 3 , wherein computing, with the RNN, the output risk indicator from the predictor variable comprises computing the output risk indicator as a second activation function of the set of activation functions of the RNN applied to a second function, the second function comprising a third weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by the updated value of the updated hidden state,

wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN to minimize the loss function of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints further comprises adjusting third weight values in the third weight matrix, wherein each cell of the third weight matrix is nonnegative.

5 . The system of claim 4 , wherein:

the first activation function has a respective derivative that is always nonnegative; and

the second activation function has an additional respective derivative that is always nonnegative.

6 . The system of claim 4 , wherein:

the first activation function has a respective range that is strictly nonnegative; and

the second activation function has an additional respective range that is strictly nonnegative.

7 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the RNN is a long short-term memory (LSTM) network.

8 . A method in which one or more processing devices perform operations comprising:

training a recurrent neural network (RNN) to compute a risk indicator from a predictor variable, wherein the RNN comprises one or more layers of nodes that are interconnected, the nodes comprising one or more hidden states having stored values based on predictor values in the predictor variable,

wherein training the RNN comprises:

accessing training samples comprising training predictor variables and training risk indicators corresponding to the training predictor variables; and

adjusting weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to a set of monotonicity constraints, wherein the set of monotonicity constraints causes output risk indicators computed by the RNN to be a monotonic function of input predictor variables that are input into the RNN,

wherein a loss function of the RNN includes a mapping function for adjusting one or more of the weights of the nodes of the RNN, wherein the mapping function adjusts the weights of the nodes to minimize the loss function of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints comprising (i) a set of activation functions with derivatives that are nonnegative and (ii) a set of nonnegative weight matrices in which at least one weight value of at least one weight matrix is adjusted by the mapping function during training; and

computing, responsive to a risk assessment query for a target entity, an output risk indicator for the target entity by applying the RNN to an input predictor variable associated with the target entity, wherein the output risk indicator is usable for controlling access by the target entity to one or more interactive computing environments.

9 . The method of claim 8 , the operations further comprising:

computing, by the RNN, an updated value of an updated hidden state of the one or more hidden states as a first activation function of the set of activation functions applied to a first function, the first function comprising (i) a first weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by the input predictor variable associated with the target entity and (ii) a second weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by a stored value of a hidden state of the one or more hidden states,

wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints comprises:

adjusting first weight values in the first weight matrix, wherein each cell of the first weight matrix is nonnegative, and

adjusting second weight values in the second weight matrix, wherein each cell of the second weight matrix is nonnegative.

10 . The method of claim 9 , wherein computing, by the RNN, the output risk indicator for the target entity comprises computing the output risk indicator as a second activation function of the set of activation functions applied to a second function, the second function comprising a third weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by the updated value of the updated hidden state,

wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints further comprises adjusting third weight values in the third weight matrix, wherein each cell of the third weight matrix is nonnegative.

11 . The method of claim 10 , wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints further comprises processing the training samples in mini-batches to adjust the weights of the nodes.

12 . The method of claim 10 , wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints further comprises updating the first weight values of the first weight matrix, the second weight values of the second matrix, and the third weight values of the third matrix using an exponential function.

13 . The method of claim 10 , wherein:

the first activation function has a respective derivative that is always nonnegative; and

the second activation function has an additional respective derivative that is always nonnegative.

14 . The method of claim 10 , wherein:

the first activation function has a respective range that is strictly nonnegative; and

the second activation function has an additional respective range that is strictly nonnegative.

15 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the RNN is a long short-term memory (LSTM) network.

16 . A non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying program code for making a risk assessment, the program code comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:

training a recurrent neural network (RNN) to compute a risk indicator from a predictor variable, wherein the RNN comprises one or more layers of nodes that are interconnected, the nodes comprising one or more hidden states having stored values based on predictor values in the predictor variable,

wherein training the RNN comprises:

accessing training samples comprising training predictor variables and training risk indicators corresponding to the training predictor variables; and

adjusting weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to a set of monotonicity constraints, wherein the set of monotonicity constraints causes output risk indicators computed by the RNN to be a monotonic function of input predictor variables that are input into the RNN,

wherein a loss function of the RNN includes a mapping function for adjusting one or more of the weights of the nodes of the RNN, wherein the mapping function adjusts the weights of the nodes to minimize the loss function of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints comprising (i) a set of activation functions with derivatives that are nonnegative and (ii) a set of nonnegative weight matrices in which at least one weight value of at least one weight matrix is adjusted by the mapping function during training; and

outputting the RNN as trained, wherein the RNN as trained is configured for computing, responsive to a risk assessment query for a target entity, an output risk indicator for the target entity by applying the RNN to an input predictor variable associated with the target entity.

17 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 , the operations further comprising:

computing, by the RNN, an updated value of an updated hidden state of the one or more hidden states as a first activation function of the set of activation functions applied to a first function, the first function comprising (i) a first weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by the input predictor variable associated with the target entity and (ii) a second weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by a stored value of a hidden state of the one or more hidden states,

wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints comprises:

adjusting first weight values in the first weight matrix, wherein each cell of the first weight matrix is nonnegative, and

adjusting second weight values in the second weight matrix, wherein each cell of the second weight matrix is nonnegative.

18 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17 , wherein the RNN as trained is further configured for computing, by the RNN, the output risk indicator for the target entity as a second activation function of the set of activation functions applied to a second function, the second function comprising a third weight matrix of the set of nonnegative weight matrices multiplied by the updated value of the updated hidden state,

wherein adjusting the weights of the nodes of the RNN subject to the set of monotonicity constraints further comprises adjusting third weight values in the third weight matrix, wherein each cell of the third weight matrix is nonnegative.

19 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18 , wherein:

the first activation function has a respective derivative that is always nonnegative; and

the second activation function has an additional respective derivative that is always nonnegative.

20 . The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 18 , wherein:

the RNN is a long short-term memory (LSTM) network;

the first activation function has a respective range that is strictly nonnegative; and

the second activation function has an additional respective range that is strictly nonnegative.

Continuity (2)
Continuation 17094262 · Nov 10, 2020
Related Publication 20240265255A1 · Aug 8, 2024
References Cited (63)
US 10210860B1 · Ward · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10565498B1 · Zhiyanov · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10963791B2 · Turner et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11275994B2 · Baughman · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11960993B2 · Boardman · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20170200066A1 · Wang · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170366353A1 · Struttmann · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180336459A1 · Baughman · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180357552A1 · Campos et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190258251A1 · Ditty et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190332919A1 · Weiss et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200027545A1 · Xie · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200035224A1 · Ward · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200125886A1 · Baijal et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200133952A1 · Sheinin · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200134387A1 · Liu et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200134439A1 · Turner et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200155101A1 · Yasunaga et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200296134A1 · Sreedhar et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20200314101A1 · Zhang · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200349430A1 · Schmidtler · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20210049503A1 · Nourian et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210056422A1 · Thakker · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20210201412A1 · Goh · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210241141A1 · Dugger et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210295175A1 · Kennel et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210326881A1 · Handelman · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210390190A1 · Walker et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20220103589A1 · Shen et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220335348A1 · Miller et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230297847A1 · Turner · 2023 [cited by examiner]
CA 3041649A1 · 2018 [cited by examiner]
CN 108108657A · 2018 [cited by examiner]
CN 109409677A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
CN 109492945A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
CN 110163187A · 2019 [cited by examiner]
CN 110188227A · 2019 [cited by examiner]
CN 110347719A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
CN 110458697A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
CN 111353728A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 111796518A · 2020 [cited by examiner]
CN 112307218A · 2021 [cited by examiner]
CN 112381647A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 108197702B · 2022 [cited by examiner]
CN 110807335B · 2023 [cited by examiner]
EP 3699827A1 · 2020 [cited by applicant]
EP 3812929A1 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
WO 2018031940A1 · 2018 [cited by applicant]
WO 2019033088A1 · 2019 [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 17/094,262, Notice of Allowance, Mailed on Dec. 26, 2023, 20 pages. [cited by applicant]
Bahdanau et al., “Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translate”, International Conference on Learning Representations, May 19, 2016, 15 pages. [cited by applicant]
Bengio et al., “Learning Long Term Dependencies with Gradient Descent is Difficult”, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 5, No. 2, Mar. 1994, pp. 157-166. [cited by applicant]
Boardman et al., “Radically Simplifying Gated Recurrent Architectures Without Loss of Performance”, 2019 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2019, pp. 2615-… [cited by applicant]
Elman , “Finding Structure in Time”, Cognitive Science, vol. 14, No. 2, 1990, pp. 179-211. [cited by applicant]
Gers et al., “Learning to Forget: Continual Prediction with LSTM”, 1999 Ninth International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks, vol. 2, Sep. 7-10, 1999, 6 pages. [cited by applicant]
Graves et al., “Framewise Phoneme Classification with Bidirectional LSTM and Other Neural Network Architectures”, Neural Networks, vol. 18, Issues 5-6, Jul.-Aug. 2005, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Greff et al., “Lstm: A Search Space Odyssey”, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 28, No. 10, Oct. 2017, pp. 1-12. [cited by applicant]
Hochreiter et al., “Gradient Flow in Recurrent Nets: The Difficulty of Learning Long-Term Dependencies”, A Field Guide to Dynamical Recurrent Neural Networks, 2001, pp. 1-15. [cited by applicant]
Hochreiter et al., “Long Short- Term Memory”, Neural Computation, vol. 9, No. 8, 1997, pp. 1-32. [cited by applicant]
Pascanu et al., “On the Difficulty of Training Recurrent Neural Networks”, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 28, No. 3, 2013, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Application No. PCT/US2021/072309 , International Preliminary Report on Patentability, Mailed On May 25, 2023, 11 pages. [cited by applicant]
International Application No. PCT/US2021/072309 , International Search Report and Written Opinion, Mailed On Mar. 2, 2022, 14 pages. [cited by applicant]
Zhang et al., “Feedforward Networks with Monotone Constraints”, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, vol. 3, Jul. 10-16, 1999, pp. 1820-1823. [cited by applicant]