Orchestration of autonomous trusted third-party banking

Statecharts

State charts or state chart diagrams can be used to define processes that are dynamic. It is used to define state changes that are triggered by events⁶. As depicted in Figure 3, there are thirteen states that are being triggered one after the other. Task 1 (t1) triggers task 2 (t2) until all thirteen states are completed for a particular transaction. As mentioned earlier, these tasks are transaction based such as a third-party fund transfer. Since the banking system is designed to be autonomous the MAS will coordinate the automated transaction processing without human intervention.

Figure 3. State chart diagram.

Table 2 illustrates nine tasks with relation to banking transactions without trust delegation. Description of the tasks (T) and relative Risk Bands (RB) have also been listed. RB can be grouped into five groups of risks, 1) Low risk, 2) Low to Medium, 3) Medium risk, 4) Medium to High risk and 5) High risk. Risks are identified by RB and the risk levels are indicated numerically from 1 to 6 as shown in Figure 4. Low level of risk is indicated by RB5 and RB6 that maps to T2 (statement request) and T1 (opening account). High level of risk is indicated by RB1 that maps to T8 as well as T10. In the Figure 1 below, there are nine KYPs (t1…t9), which are tagged to company platforms available on the P2P platform.

Figure 4. Risk Graph associated with Risk Band (RB).

Analysis from RA and EA calculations show that Risk band 6 (RB = 6) includes t1, t2, and t4, which are high risk platforms. Risk band 1 (RB = 1) includes t7, t8 and t9, which are relatively low risk platforms. Overall, we can compare the risk bands to show relative risks between (t1 to t9). For example, t9, will have the same level of risk as t8, which are compatible in terms of risk band. T8 refers to Loan Facility Approval and T10 refers to international foreign currency wire transfer. Comparable risks are for tasks (T6, T7 and T9) which all fall under RB2. Similarly, T1 and T3 also share the same RB which is RB5. Whereas non-comparable RBs are those such as different tiers such as T9 and T10.

Trust attributes and risk band

Risk scales for automated transaction are embedded into our proposed autonomous banking system for enabling a trust-based network. The main objective of this study is to determine access rights based on risk bands. The idea is to use risk-based assessment for better control measure and execution. Intuitively, the larger the risk, the greater the risk band and the higher the scrutiny. Before rights to access is granted, detailed access control permissions are allocated based on risk bands. However, trust delegation for transactions can also be dealt with in this methodology. This sis explained further in the next section.

Trust delegation

Trust delegation in principle refers to any task (t) where the role of approval can be delegated or transferred personnel within boundaries of process owners⁷.

Figure 5 highlights the proposed trust based autonomous banking platform where trust delegation is included. A total of nine tasks (t1…t9), for autonomous banking is illustrated. Risk band 6 (RB6) includes high risk tasks (t1, t2 and t4). (RB1) includes low risk tasks (t7, t8 and t9). Risk band 3 (RB3) includes average risk tasks (t3, t5 and t6).

Figure 5. Risk Graph with Trust Delegation (Muthaiyah, 2020).

For example, if a process owner executes t9, the process owner will have the same level of risk as t8, which are compatible in terms of risk band. Any task that has a higher risk than RB = 1, more scrutiny will be applied to grant permission for that task.

This flexibility is crucial for tasks that are dynamic in the context of autonomous banking. In this manner post evaluation for the transactions can be executed this enabling risk levels to move up or down depending on the RB. Intuitively, the larger the gap between the RB, the higher the risk⁷. As such, Tasks t1, t2, and t4 belong to the same level of risk (RB = 6). Securing transaction threats by accessing risks associated with them can reduce likelihood of liabilities however the risk assessment process should not be ambiguous, inconsistent and have omissions. Therefore, the mathematical formulation below is necessary to add rigor to the assessment⁷.

In a Multi Agent System (MAS) platform for autonomous systems in this case “agents”, there is a need to have the agent systems programmed with a certain logic or algorithm so that they can execute these transactions seamlessly. As such we illustrate the following mathematical expression for developing the logic for risk ordering and risk bands. We have implemented a detailed algorithm using the Foundation of Intelligent Physical Agents (FIPA) standard shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Agent Systems for autonomous platforms (Muthaiyah, 2020).

However, this paper’s focus is only on developing the logic for trust delegation at this stage. More detailed transaction logic will be implemented it in the near future to accommodate transactions that are not listed in Table 2. Figure 6, illustrates autonomous banking trust delegation for task execution workflow⁵. The concept is based on a Multi Agent Systems (MAS) platform assumed by the functional architecture proposed by FIPA, an Agents Working Group. MAS can be thought of multitude autonomous entities, that execute processes one through seven shown below. This paper presents an implementation of an autonomous banking platform providing transparent interaction between process owners that are represented by agent systems.

Ethics

Ethical Approval Number: EA1202021

Ethical approval was obtained from the research management center at the university. Researchers had to first submit the title of the project, what the author planned to do for the interviews and details of study objectives. The officer at the research management center after reviewing the documents will then issue a letter of clearance for the data collection to be carried out. The approval letter was then obtained, and the reference number of this letter is EA1202021.