Computer-implemented system and method for generating document groupings for display

Abstract
A computer-implemented system and method for generating document groupings is provided. A lexicon of terms extracted from a set of documents is generated. The lexicon includes a frequency of each extracted term within each document in the set. Concepts each having two or more of the extracted terms are generated. A subset of the documents in the set is selected based on the term frequencies. The subset of documents is grouped into clusters based on the concepts. A similarity of each document cluster is calculated with one or more documents based on a distance by summing the frequency of each term in that document and a weight of the cluster for each of the terms. The weights are updated until a rate of change for each cluster becomes constant.
Description
FIELD

The present invention relates in general to text mining and, in particular, to a computer-implemented system and method for generating document groupings for display.


BACKGROUND

Document warehousing extends data warehousing to content mining and retrieval. Document warehousing attempts to extract semantic information from collections of unstructured documents to provide conceptual information with a high degree of precision and recall. Documents in a document warehouse share several properties. First, the documents lack a common structure or shared type. Second, semantically-related documents are integrated through text mining. Third, essential document features are extracted and explicitly stored as part of the document warehouse. Finally, documents are often retrieved from multiple and disparate sources, such as over the Internet or as electronic messages.


Document warehouses are built in stages to deal with a wide range of information sources. First, document sources are identified and documents are retrieved into a repository. For example, the document sources could be electronic messaging folders or Web content retrieved over the Internet. Once retrieved, the documents are pre-processed to format and regularize the information into a consistent manner. Next, during text analysis, text mining is performed to extract semantic content, including identifying dominant themes, extracting key features and summarizing the content. Finally, metadata is compiled from the semantic context to explicate essential attributes. Preferably, the metadata is provided in a format amenable to normalized queries, such as database management tools. Document warehousing is described in D. Sullivan, “Document Warehousing and Text Mining, Techniques for Improving Business Operations, Marketing, and Sales,” Chs. 1-3, Wiley Computer Publishing (2001), the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.


Text mining is at the core of the data warehousing process. Text mining involves the compiling, organizing and analyzing of document collections to support the delivery of targeted types of information and to discover relationships between relevant facts. However, identifying relevant content can be difficult. First, extracting relevant content requires a high degree of precision and recall. Precision is the measure of how well the documents returned in response to a query actually address the query criteria. Recall is the measure of what should have been returned by the query. Typically, the broader and less structured the documents, the lower the degree of precision and recall. Second, analyzing an unstructured document collection without the benefit of a priori knowledge in the form of keywords and indices can present a potentially intractable problem space. Finally, synonymy and polysemy can cloud and confuse extracted content. Synonymy refers to multiple words having the same meaning and polysemy refers to a single word with multiple meanings. Fine-grained text mining must reconcile synonymy and polysemy to yield meaningful results.


In the prior art, text mining is performed in two ways. First, syntactic searching provides a brute force approach to analyzing and extracting content based on literal textual attributes found in each document. Syntactic searching includes keyword and proximate keyword searching as well as rule-based searching through Boolean relationships. Syntactic searching relies on predefined indices of keywords and stop words to locate relevant information. However, there are several ways to express any given concept. Accordingly, syntactic searching can fail to yield satisfactory results due to incomplete indices and poorly structured search criteria.


A more advanced prior art approach uses a vector space model to search for underlying meanings in a document collection. The vector space model employs a geometric representation of documents using word vectors. Individual keywords are mapped into vectors in multi-dimensional space along axes representative of query search terms. Significant terms are assigned a relative weight and semantic content is extracted based on threshold filters. Although substantially overcoming the shortcomings of syntactic searching, the multivariant and multidimensional nature of the vector space model can lead to a computationally intractable problem space. As well, the vector space model fails to resolve the problems of synonymy and polysemy.


Therefore, there is a need for an approach to dynamically evaluating concepts inherent in a collection of documents. Such an approach would preferably dynamically discover the latent meanings without the use of a priori knowledge or indices. Rather, the approach would discover semantic relationships between individual terms given the presence of another item.


There is a further need for an approach to providing a graphical visualization of concepts extracted from a document set through semantic indexing. Preferably, such an approach would extract the underlying meanings of documents through statistics and linear algebraic techniques to find clusters of terms and phrases representative of the concepts.


SUMMARY

The present invention provides a system and method for indexing and evaluating unstructured documents through analysis of dynamically extracted concepts. A set of unstructured documents is identified and retrieved into a document warehouse repository. Individual concepts are extracted from the documents and mapped as normalized data into a database. The frequencies of occurrence of each concept within each document and over all documents are determined and mapped. A corpus graph is generated to display a minimized set of concepts whereby each concept references at least two documents and no document in the corpus is unreferenced. A subset of documents occurring within predefined edge conditions of a median value are selected. Clusters of concepts are grouped into themes. Inner products of document concept frequency occurrences and cluster concept weightings are mapped into a multi-dimensional concept space for each theme and iteratively generated until the clusters settle. The resultant data minima indicates those documents having the most pertinence to the identified concepts.


An embodiment provides a computer-implemented system and method for generating document groupings. A lexicon of terms extracted from a set of documents is generated. The lexicon includes a frequency of each extracted term within each document in the set. Concepts each having two or more of the extracted terms are generated. A subset of the documents in the set is selected based on the term frequencies. The subset of documents is grouped into clusters based on the concepts. A similarity of each document cluster is calculated with at least one document based on a distance by summing the frequency of each term in that document and a weight of the cluster for each of the terms. The weights are updated until a rate of change for each cluster becomes constant.


In summary, the present invention semantically evaluates terms and phrases with the goal of creating meaningful themes. Document frequencies and co-occurrences of terms and phrases are used to select a minimal set of highly correlated terms and phrases that reference all documents in a corpus.


Still other embodiments of the present invention will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description, wherein is described embodiments of the invention by way of illustrating the best mode contemplated for carrying out the invention. As will be realized, the invention is capable of other and different embodiments and its several details are capable of modifications in various obvious respects, all without departing from the spirit and the scope of the present invention. Accordingly, the drawings and detailed description are to be regarded as illustrative in nature and not as restrictive.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a system for dynamically evaluating latent concepts in unstructured documents, in accordance with the present invention.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the software modules implementing the document analyzer of FIG. 1.



FIG. 3 is a process flow diagram showing the stages of text analysis performed by the document analyzer of FIG. 1.



FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing a method for dynamically evaluating latent concepts in unstructured documents, in accordance with the present invention.



FIG. 5 is a flow diagram showing the routine for performing text analysis for use in the method of FIG. 4.



FIG. 6 is a flow diagram showing the routine for creating a histogram for use in the routine of FIG. 5.



FIG. 7 is a data structure diagram showing a database record for a concept stored in the database 30 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 8 is a data structure diagram showing, by way of example, a database table containing a lexicon of extracted concepts stored in the database 30 of FIG. 1.



FIG. 9 is a graph showing, by way of example, a histogram of the frequencies of concept occurrences generated by the routine of FIG. 6.



FIG. 10 is a table showing, by way of example, concept occurrence frequencies generated by the routine of FIG. 6.



FIG. 11 is a graph showing, by way of example, a corpus graph of the frequency of concept occurrences generated by the routine of FIG. 5.



FIG. 12 is a flow diagram showing a routine for creating a matrix for use in the routine of FIG. 5.



FIG. 13 is a table showing, by way of example, the matrix of themes generated by the routine of FIG. 12.



FIG. 14 is a flow diagram showing a routine for determining results for use in the routine of FIG. 5.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION
Glossary





    • Keyword: A literal search term which is either present or absent from a document. Keywords are not used in the evaluation of documents as described herein.

    • Term: A root stem of a single word appearing in the body of at least one document.

    • Phrase: Two or more words co-occurring in the body of a document.

    • A phrase can include stop words.

    • Concept: A collection of terms or phrases with common semantic meanings

    • Theme: Two or more concepts with a common semantic meaning

    • Cluster: All documents for a given concept or theme.


      The foregoing terms are used throughout this document and, unless indicated otherwise, are assigned the meanings presented above.






FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing a system 11 for dynamically evaluating latent concepts in unstructured documents, in accordance with the present invention. By way of illustration, the system 11 operates in a distributed computing environment 10 which includes a plurality of heterogeneous systems and document sources. The system 11 implements a document analyzer 12, as further described below beginning with reference to FIG. 2, for evaluating latent concepts in unstructured documents. The system 11 is coupled to a storage device 13 which stores a document warehouse 14 for maintaining a repository of documents and a database 30 for maintaining document information.


The document analyzer 12 analyzes documents retrieved from a plurality of local sources. The local sources include documents 17 maintained in a storage device 16 coupled to a local server 15 and documents 20 maintained in a storage device 19 coupled to a local client 18. The local server 15 and local client 18 are interconnected to the system 11 over an intranetwork 21. In addition, the document analyzer 12 can identify and retrieve documents from remote sources over an internetwork 22, including the Internet, through a gateway 23 interfaced to the intranetwork 21. The remote sources include documents 26 maintained in a storage device 25 coupled to a remote server 24 and documents 29 maintained in a storage device 28 coupled to a remote client 27.


The individual documents 17, 20, 26, 29 include all forms and types of unstructured data, including electronic message stores, such as electronic mail (email) folders, word processing documents or Hypertext documents, and could also include graphical or multimedia data. Notwithstanding, the documents could be in the form of structured data, such as stored in a spreadsheet or database. Content mined from these types of documents does not require preprocessing, as described below.


In the described embodiment, the individual documents 17, 20, 26, 29 include electronic message folders, such as maintained by the Outlook and Outlook Express products, licensed by Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash. The database is an SQL-based relational database, such as the Oracle database management system, release 8, licensed by Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, Calif.


The individual computer systems, including system 11, server 15, client 18, remote server 24 and remote client 27, are general purpose, programmed digital computing devices consisting of a central processing unit (CPU), random access memory (RAM), non-volatile secondary storage, such as a hard drive or CD ROM drive, network interfaces, and peripheral devices, including user interfacing means, such as a keyboard and display. Program code, including software programs, and data are loaded into the RAM for execution and processing by the CPU and results are generated for display, output, transmittal, or storage.



FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the software modules 40 implementing the document analyzer 12 of FIG. 1. The document analyzer 12 includes three modules: storage and retrieval manager 41, text analyzer 42, and display and visualization 43. The storage and retrieval manager 41 identifies and retrieves documents 44 into the document warehouse 14 (shown in FIG. 1). The documents 44 are retrieved from various sources, including both local and remote clients and server stores. The text analyzer 42 performs the bulk of the text mining processing. The display and visualization 43 complements the operations performed by the text analyzer 42 by presenting visual representations of the information extracted from the documents 44. The display and visualization 43 can also generate a graphical representation which preserves independent variable relationships, such as described in common-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 6,888,548, issued May 3, 2005, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.


During text analysis, the text analyzer 42 identifies terms and phrases and extracts concepts in the form of noun phrases that are stored in a lexicon 18 maintained in the database 30. After normalizing the extracted concepts, the text analyzer 42 generates a frequency table 46 of concept occurrences, as further described below with reference to FIG. 6, and a matrix 47 of summations of the products of pair-wise terms, as further described below with reference to FIG. 10. Similarly, the display and visualization 43 generates a histogram 47 of concept occurrences per document, as further described below with reference to FIG. 6, and a corpus graph 48 of concept occurrences over all documents, as further described below with reference to FIG. 8.


Each module is a computer program, procedure or module written as source code in a conventional programming language, such as the C++ programming language, and is presented for execution by the CPU as object or byte code, as is known in the art. The various implementations of the source code and object and byte codes can be held on a computer-readable storage medium or embodied on a transmission medium in a carrier wave. The document analyzer 12 operates in accordance with a sequence of process steps, as further described below with reference to FIG. 5.



FIG. 3 is a process flow diagram showing the stages 60 of text analysis performed by the document analyzer 12 of FIG. 1. The individual documents 44 are preprocessed and noun phrases are extracted as concepts (transition 61) into a lexicon 45. The noun phrases are normalized and queried (transition 62) to generate a frequency table 46. The frequency table 46 identifies individual concepts and their respective frequency of occurrence within each document 44. The frequencies of concept occurrences are visualized (transition 63) into a frequency of concepts histogram 48. The histogram 48 graphically displays the frequencies of occurrence of each concept on a per-document basis. Next, the frequencies of concept occurrences for all the documents 44 are assimilated (transition 64) into a corpus graph 49 that displays the overall counts of documents containing each of the extracted concepts. Finally, the most relevant concepts are summarized (transition 65) into a matrix 46 that presents the results as summations of the products of pair-wise terms.



FIG. 4 is a flow diagram showing a method 70 for dynamically evaluating latent concepts in unstructured documents 44 (shown in FIG. 2), in accordance with the present invention. As a preliminary step, the set of documents 44 to be analyzed is identified (block 71) and retrieved into the document warehouse 14 (shown in FIG. 1) (block 72). The documents 44 are unstructured data and lack a common format or shared type. The documents 44 include electronic messages stored in messaging folders, word processing documents, hypertext documents, and the like.


Once identified and retrieved, the set of documents 44 is analyzed (block 73), as further described below with reference to FIG. 5. During text analysis, a matrix 47 (shown in FIG. 2) of term-document association data is constructed to summarize the semantic content inherent in the structure of the documents 44. As well, the frequency of individual terms or phrases extracted from the documents 44 are displayed and the results are optionally visualized (block 74). The routine then terminates.



FIG. 5 is a flow diagram showing the routine 80 for performing text analysis for use in the method 70 of FIG. 4. The purpose of this routine is to extract and index terms or phrases for the set of documents 44 (shown in FIG. 2). Preliminarily, each document in the documents set 44 is preprocessed (block 81) to remove stop words. These include commonly occurring words, such as indefinite articles (“a” and “an”), definite articles (“the”), pronouns (“I”, “he” and “she”), connectors (“and” and “or”), and similar non-substantive words.


Following preprocessing, a histogram 48 of the frequency of terms (shown in FIG. 2) is logically created for each document 44 (block 82), as further described below with reference to FIG. 6. Each histogram 48, as further described below with reference to FIG. 9, maps the relative frequency of occurrence of each extracted term on a per-document basis.


Next, a document reference frequency (corpus) graph 49, as further described below with reference to FIG. 10, is created for all documents 44 (block 83). The corpus graph 49 graphically maps the semantically-related concepts for the entire documents set 44 based on terms and phrases. A subset of the corpus is selected by removing those terms and phrases falling outside either edge of predefined thresholds (block 84). For shorter documents, such as email, having less semantically-rich content, the thresholds are set from about 1% to about 15%, inclusive. Larger documents may require tighter threshold values.


The selected set of terms and phrases falling within the thresholds are used to generate themes (and concepts) (block 85) based on correlations between normalized terms and phrases in the documents set. In the described embodiment, themes are primarily used, rather than individual concepts, as a single co-occurrence of terms or phrases carries less semantic meaning than multiple co-occurrences. As used herein, any reference to a “theme” or “concept” will be understood to include the other term, except as specifically indicated otherwise.


Next, clusters are created (block 86) from groups of highly-correlated concepts and themes. Individual concepts and themes are categorized based on, for example, Euclidean distances calculated between each pair of concepts and themes and defined within a pre-specified range of variance, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 6,778,995, issued Aug. 17, 2004, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.


A matrix 47 of the documents 44 is created (block 87), as further described below with reference to FIG. 13. The matrix 47 contains the inner products of document concept frequency occurrences and cluster concept weightings mapped into a multi-dimensional concept space for each theme. Finally, the results of the text analysis operations are determined (block 88), as further described below with reference to FIG. 14, after which the routine returns.



FIG. 6 is a flow diagram showing the routine 90 for creating a histogram 48 (shown in FIG. 2) for use in the routine of FIG. 5. The purpose of this routine is to extract noun phrases representing individual concepts and to create a normalized representation of the occurrences of the concepts on a per-document basis. The histogram represents the logical union of the terms and phrases extracted from each document. In the described embodiment, the histogram 48 need not be expressly visualized, but is generated internally as part of the text analysis process.


Initially, noun phrases are extracted (block 91) from each document 44. In the described embodiment, concepts are defined on the basis of the extracted noun phrases, although individual nouns or tri-grams (word triples) could be used in lieu of noun phrases. In the described embodiment, the noun phrases are extracted using the LinguistX product licensed by Inxight Software, Inc., Santa Clara, Calif.


Once extracted, the individual terms or phrases are loaded into records stored in the database 30 (shown in FIG. 1) (block 92). The terms stored in the database 30 are normalized (block 93) such that each concept appears as a record only once. In the described embodiment, the records are normalized into third normal form, although other normalization schemas could be used.



FIG. 7 is a data structure diagram showing a database record 100 for a concept stored in the database 30 of FIG. 1. Each database record 100 includes fields for storing an identifier 101, string 102 and frequency 103. The identifier 101 is a monotonically increasing integer value that uniquely identifies each term or phrase stored as the string 102 in each record 100. The frequency of occurrence of each term or phrase is tallied in the frequency 103.



FIG. 8 is a data structure diagram showing, by way of example, a database table 110 containing a lexicon 111 of extracted concepts stored in the database 30 of FIG. 1. The lexicon 111 maps out the individual occurrences of identified terms 113 extracted for any given document 112. By way of example, the document 112 includes three terms numbered 1, 3 and 5. Concept occurs once in document 112, concept 3 occurs twice, and concept 5 occurs once. The lexicon tallies and represents the occurrences of frequency of the concepts 1, 3 and 5 across all documents 44.


Referring back to FIG. 6, a frequency table is created from the lexicon 111 for each given document 44 (block 94). The frequency table is sorted in order of decreasing frequencies of occurrence for each concept 113 found in a given document 44. In the described embodiment, all terms and phrases occurring just once in a given document are removed as not relevant to semantic content. The frequency table is then used to generate a histogram 48 (shown in FIG. 2) (block 95) which visualizes the frequencies of occurrence of extracted concepts in each document. The routine then returns.



FIG. 9 is a graph showing, by way of example, a histogram 48 of the frequencies of concept occurrences generated by the routine of FIG. 6. The x-axis defines the individual concepts 121 for each document and the y-axis defines the frequencies of occurrence of each concept 122. The concepts are mapped in order of decreasing frequency 123 to generate a curve 124 representing the semantic content of the document 44. Accordingly, terms or phrases appearing on the increasing end of the curve 124 have a high frequency of occurrence while concepts appearing on the descending end of the curve 124 have a low frequency of occurrence.



FIG. 10 is a table 130 showing, by way of example, concept occurrence frequencies generated by the routine of FIG. 6. Each concept 131 is mapped against the total frequency occurrence 132 for the entire set of documents 44. Thus, for each of the concepts 133, a cumulative frequency 134 is tallied. The corpus table 130 is used to generate the document concept frequency reference (corpus) graph 49.



FIG. 11 is a graph 140 showing, by way of example, a corpus graph of the frequency of concept occurrences generated by the routine of FIG. 5. The graph 140 visualizes the extracted concepts as tallied in the corpus table 130 (shown in FIG. 10). The x-axis defines the individual concepts 141 for all documents and the y-axis defines the number of documents 44 referencing each concept 142. The individual concepts are mapped in order of descending frequency of occurrence 143 to generate a curve 144 representing the latent semantics of the set of documents 44.


A median value 145 is selected and edge conditions 146a-b are established to discriminate between concepts which occur too frequently versus concepts which occur too infrequently. Those documents falling within the edge conditions 146a-b form a subset of documents containing latent concepts. In the described embodiment, the median value 145 is document-type dependent. For efficiency, the upper edge condition 146b is set to 70% and the 64 concepts immediately preceding the upper edge condition 146b are selected, although other forms of threshold discrimination could also be used.



FIG. 12 is a flow diagram showing the routine 150 for creating a matrix 47 (shown in FIG. 2) for use in the routine of FIG. 5. Initially, those documents 44 having zero values for frequency counts are removed through filtering (block 151). The inner products of document concept frequency occurrences and cluster concept weightings mapped into a multi-dimensional concept space for each theme are calculated and used to populate the matrix (block 152). The individual cluster weightings are iteratively updated (block 153) to determine best fit. Those documents having the smallest inner products are deemed most relevant to a given theme and are identified (block 154). The routine then returns.



FIG. 13 is a table 170 showing the matrix 47 generated by the routine of FIG. 12. The matrix 47 maps a cluster 171 to documents 172 based on a calculated inner product. Each inner product quantifies similarities between documents, as represented by a distance. The distance is mapped into a multi-dimensional concept space for a given document, as measured by the magnitude of a vector for a given term drawn relative to an angle θ, held constant for the given cluster.


For a set of n documents, the distance dcluster is calculated by taking the sum of products (inner product) by terms between document concept frequency occurrences and cluster concept weightings, using the following equation:







d
cluster

=




i

n









doc

term
i


·

cluster

term
i









where docterm represents the frequency of occurrence for a given term i in the selected document and clusterterm represents the weight of a given cluster for a given term i. The weights of the individual inner products are iteratively updated until the clusters settle. The goal is to calculate the minimum distances between as few clusters as possible until the rate of change goes constant. The rate of change can be calculated, for example, by taking the first derivative of the inner products over successive iterations.



FIG. 14 is a flow diagram showing the routine 180 for determining results for use in the routine of FIG. 5. Duplicate documents 44 are removed from the results (block 181). The results are re-run (block 182), as necessary by repeating the text analysis operations (block 183), beginning with creating the corpus graph 49 (block 84 in FIG. 5). After satisfactory results have been obtained (block 182), the routine returns.


Satisfactory results are shown when a meaningful cluster of documents is found. Objectively, each document within a given theme will have an inner product falling within a pre-defined variance of other related documents, thereby reflecting a set amount of similarity. The cluster itself represents a larger grouping of document sets based on related, but not identical, themes.


If necessary, the results are re-run (block 182). One reason to re-run the results set would be to re-center the median value 145 of the corpus graph 140 (shown in FIG. 11) following the filtering of further documents 44. The filtering of edge condition concept frequency occurrences will cause the curve 144 to be redefined, thereby requiring further processing.


While the invention has been particularly shown and described as referenced to the embodiments thereof, those skilled in the art will understand that the foregoing and other changes in form and detail may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.

Claims
  • 1. A computer-implemented system for generating document groupings, comprising: a database to store a set of document, a lexicon of terms extracted from the set of documents and comprising a frequency of each extracted term within each document, and concepts each comprising two or more of the extracted terms; anda server comprising a central processing unit, memory, an input port to receive the documents, lexicon and concepts from the database, and an output port, wherein the central processing unit is configured to: select a subset of the documents in the set based on the term frequencies;group the subset of documents into clusters based on the concepts;calculate a similarity of each document cluster with at least one document based on a distance by summing the frequency of each term in that document and a weight of the cluster for each of the terms; andupdate the weights until a rate of change for each cluster becomes constant.
  • 2. A system according to claim 1, wherein the central processing unit further identifies one or more of the clusters as meaningful by defining a variance, selects those clusters having one or more documents with inner products that fall within the variance as meaningful, and presents those documents identified as meaningful.
  • 3. A system according to claim 1, wherein the central processing unit further represents semantic content of each document by mapping the terms in that document in order of decreasing frequency.
  • 4. A system according to claim 1, wherein the central processing unit further represents latent semantics of the document set by mapping each term in the document set against a total frequency occurrence, wherein the total frequency occurrence is calculated as a sum of the term frequencies within each document in the set.
  • 5. A system according to claim 4, wherein the central processing unit further selects a median value and edge conditions for the total frequency occurrences of the terms and generates the subset of documents from those documents in the set that satisfy the edge conditions.
  • 6. A system according to claim 5, wherein the central processing unit further re-centers the median value and to generate a different subset of documents for grouping.
  • 7. A system according to claim 5, wherein the central processing unit further sets the edge conditions based on a size of the documents.
  • 8. A system according to claim 7, wherein larger documents have tighter edge conditions than shorter documents.
  • 9. A system according to claim 1, wherein the central processing unit further calculates the distance using the following equation:
  • 10. A system according to claim 1, wherein the central processing unit further calculates the rate of change by determining a first derivative of the inner products over successive iterations.
  • 11. A computer-implemented method for generating document groupings, comprising: generating a lexicon of terms extracted from a set of documents and comprising a frequency of each extracted term within each document;generating concepts each comprising two or more of the extracted terms;selecting a subset of the documents in the set based on the term frequencies;grouping the subset of documents into clusters based on the concepts;calculating a similarity of each document cluster with at least one document based on a distance by summing the frequency of each term in that document and a weight of the cluster for each of the terms; andupdating the weights until a rate of change for each cluster becomes constant.
  • 12. A method according to claim 11, further comprising: identifying one or more of the clusters as meaningful, comprising: defining a variance; andselecting those clusters having one or more documents with inner products that fall within the variance as meaningful; anddisplaying those documents identified as meaningful.
  • 13. A method according to claim 11, further comprising: representing semantic content of each document by mapping the terms in that document in order of decreasing frequency.
  • 14. A method according to claim 11, further comprising: representing latent semantics of the document set by mapping each term in the document set against a total frequency occurrence, wherein the total frequency occurrence is calculated as a sum of the term frequencies within each document in the set.
  • 15. A method according to claim 14, further comprising: selecting a median value and edge conditions for the total frequency occurrences of the terms; andgenerating the subset of documents from those documents in the set that satisfy the edge conditions.
  • 16. A method according to claim 15, further comprising: re-centering the median value; andgenerating a different subset of documents for grouping.
  • 17. A method according to claim 15, further comprising: setting the edge conditions based on a size of the documents.
  • 18. A method according to claim 17, wherein larger documents have tighter edge conditions than shorter documents.
  • 19. A method according to claim 11, further comprising: calculating the distance using the following equation:
  • 20. A method according to claim 11, further comprising: calculating the rate of change by determining a first derivative of the inner products over successive iterations.
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This patent application is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 9,195,399, issued Nov. 24, 2015; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,725,736, issued May 13, 2014; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,380,718, issued Feb. 19, 2013; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,015,188, issued Sep. 6, 2011; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,809,727, issued Oct. 5, 2010; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,313,556, issued Dec. 25, 2007; which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 6,978,274, issued Dec. 20, 2005, the priority filing dates of which are claimed and the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.

US Referenced Citations (201)
Number Name Date Kind
3416150 Lindberg Dec 1968 A
3426210 Agin Feb 1969 A
3668658 Flores et al. Jun 1972 A
4893253 Lodder Jan 1990 A
4991087 Burkowski Feb 1991 A
5056021 Ausborn Oct 1991 A
5121338 Lodder Jun 1992 A
5133067 Hara et al. Jul 1992 A
5182773 Bahl Jan 1993 A
5278980 Pedersen et al. Jan 1994 A
5371673 Fan Dec 1994 A
5371807 Register Dec 1994 A
5442778 Pedersen Aug 1995 A
5477451 Brown et al. Dec 1995 A
5488725 Turtle Jan 1996 A
5524177 Suzuoka Jun 1996 A
5528735 Strasnick et al. Jun 1996 A
5619632 Lamping et al. Apr 1997 A
5619709 Caid et al. Apr 1997 A
5635929 Rabowsky et al. Jun 1997 A
5649193 Sumita et al. Jul 1997 A
5675819 Schuetze Oct 1997 A
5696962 Kupiec Dec 1997 A
5706497 Takahashi Jan 1998 A
5737734 Schultz Apr 1998 A
5754938 Herz et al. May 1998 A
5754939 Herz May 1998 A
5787422 Tukey Jul 1998 A
5794236 Mehrle Aug 1998 A
5799276 Komissarchik et al. Aug 1998 A
5819258 Vaithyanathan Oct 1998 A
5819260 Lu Oct 1998 A
5842203 D'Elena et al. Nov 1998 A
5844991 Hochberg et al. Dec 1998 A
5857179 Vaithyanathan Jan 1999 A
5860136 Fenner Jan 1999 A
5862325 Reed et al. Jan 1999 A
5864846 Voorhees Jan 1999 A
5864871 Kitain et al. Jan 1999 A
5867799 Lang et al. Feb 1999 A
5870740 Rose et al. Feb 1999 A
5909677 Broder et al. Jun 1999 A
5915024 Kitaori et al. Jun 1999 A
5915249 Spencer Jun 1999 A
5920854 Kirsch et al. Jul 1999 A
5924105 Punch, III Jul 1999 A
5940821 Wical Aug 1999 A
5950146 Vapnik Sep 1999 A
5950189 Cohen et al. Sep 1999 A
5966126 Szabo Oct 1999 A
5987446 Corey et al. Nov 1999 A
5987457 Ballard Nov 1999 A
6006221 Liddy et al. Dec 1999 A
6012053 Pant et al. Jan 2000 A
6026397 Sheppard Feb 2000 A
6038574 Pitkow et al. Mar 2000 A
6070133 Brewster et al. May 2000 A
6089742 Warmerdam et al. Jul 2000 A
6092059 Straforini et al. Jul 2000 A
6092091 Sumita Jul 2000 A
6094649 Bowen et al. Jul 2000 A
6100901 Mohda et al. Aug 2000 A
6119124 Broder et al. Sep 2000 A
6122628 Castelli et al. Sep 2000 A
6137499 Tesler Oct 2000 A
6137545 Patel Oct 2000 A
6137911 Zhilyaev Oct 2000 A
6148102 Stolin Nov 2000 A
6154219 Wiley et al. Nov 2000 A
6167368 Wacholder Dec 2000 A
6173275 Caid et al. Jan 2001 B1
6202064 Julliard Mar 2001 B1
6216123 Robertson et al. Apr 2001 B1
6243713 Nelson et al. Jun 2001 B1
6243724 Mander Jun 2001 B1
6260038 Martin Jul 2001 B1
6326962 Szabo Dec 2001 B1
6338062 Liu Jan 2002 B1
6345243 Clark Feb 2002 B1
6349296 Broder et al. Feb 2002 B1
6349307 Chen Feb 2002 B1
6360227 Aggarwal Mar 2002 B1
6377287 Hao et al. Apr 2002 B1
6381601 Fujiwara et al. Apr 2002 B1
6389433 Bolonsky et al. May 2002 B1
6389436 Chakrabarti et al. May 2002 B1
6408294 Getchius et al. Jun 2002 B1
6414677 Robertson et al. Jul 2002 B1
6415283 Conklin Jul 2002 B1
6418431 Mahajan Jul 2002 B1
6421709 McCormick et al. Jul 2002 B1
6438537 Netz et al. Aug 2002 B1
6438564 Morton et al. Aug 2002 B1
6442592 Alumbaugh et al. Aug 2002 B1
6446061 Doerre et al. Sep 2002 B1
6449612 Bradley et al. Sep 2002 B1
6453327 Nielsen Sep 2002 B1
6460034 Wical Oct 2002 B1
6470307 Turney Oct 2002 B1
6480843 Li Nov 2002 B2
6480885 Olivier Nov 2002 B1
6484168 Pennock Nov 2002 B1
6484196 Maurille Nov 2002 B1
6493703 Knight et al. Dec 2002 B1
6496822 Rosenfelt et al. Dec 2002 B2
6502081 Wiltshire, Jr. et al. Dec 2002 B1
6507847 Fleischman Jan 2003 B1
6510406 Marchisio Jan 2003 B1
6519580 Johnson et al. Feb 2003 B1
6523026 Gillis Feb 2003 B1
6523063 Miller et al. Feb 2003 B1
6542889 Aggarwal et al. Apr 2003 B1
6544123 Tanaka et al. Apr 2003 B1
6549957 Hanson et al. Apr 2003 B1
6560597 Dhillon May 2003 B1
6571225 Oles et al. May 2003 B1
6584564 Olkin et al. Jun 2003 B2
6594658 Woods Jul 2003 B2
6598054 Schuetze et al. Jul 2003 B2
6606625 Muslea et al. Aug 2003 B1
6611825 Billheimer et al. Aug 2003 B1
6628304 Mitchell et al. Sep 2003 B2
6629097 Keith Sep 2003 B1
6651057 Jin et al. Nov 2003 B1
6654739 Apte et al. Nov 2003 B1
6658423 Pugh et al. Dec 2003 B1
6675159 Lin et al. Jan 2004 B1
6675164 Kamath et al. Jan 2004 B2
6678705 Berchtold et al. Jan 2004 B1
6684205 Modha et al. Jan 2004 B1
6697998 Damerau et al. Feb 2004 B1
6701305 Holt et al. Mar 2004 B1
6711585 Copperman et al. Mar 2004 B1
6714929 Micaelian et al. Mar 2004 B1
6735578 Shetty et al. May 2004 B2
6738759 Wheeler et al. May 2004 B1
6747646 Gueziec et al. Jun 2004 B2
6751628 Coady Jun 2004 B2
6757646 Marchisio Jun 2004 B2
6778995 Gallivan Aug 2004 B1
6785679 Dane et al. Aug 2004 B1
6789230 Katariya Sep 2004 B2
6804665 Kreulen et al. Oct 2004 B2
6816175 Hamp et al. Nov 2004 B1
6819344 Robbins Nov 2004 B2
6823333 McGreevy Nov 2004 B2
6841321 Matsumoto et al. Jan 2005 B2
6862710 Marchisio Mar 2005 B1
6879332 Decombe Apr 2005 B2
6883001 Abe Apr 2005 B2
6888584 Suzuki et al. May 2005 B2
6915308 Evans Jul 2005 B1
6922699 Schuetze et al. Jul 2005 B2
6941325 Benitez et al. Sep 2005 B1
6970881 Mohan et al. Nov 2005 B1
6978419 Kantrowitz Dec 2005 B1
6990238 Saffer et al. Jan 2006 B1
7003551 Malik Feb 2006 B2
7013435 Gallo et al. Mar 2006 B2
7020645 Bisbee et al. Mar 2006 B2
7051017 Marchisio May 2006 B2
7054870 Holbrook May 2006 B2
7080320 Ono Jul 2006 B2
7096431 Tambata et al. Aug 2006 B2
7099819 Sakai et al. Aug 2006 B2
7117246 Christenson et al. Oct 2006 B2
7130807 Mikurak Oct 2006 B1
7137075 Hoshito et al. Nov 2006 B2
7155668 Holland et al. Dec 2006 B2
7194458 Micaelian et al. Mar 2007 B1
7194483 Mohan et al. Mar 2007 B1
7209949 Mousseau et al. Apr 2007 B2
7233886 Wegerich et al. Jun 2007 B2
7240199 Tomkow Jul 2007 B2
7251637 Caid et al. Jul 2007 B1
7266365 Ferguson et al. Sep 2007 B2
7266545 Bergman et al. Sep 2007 B2
7269598 Marchisio Sep 2007 B2
7277919 Dohono et al. Oct 2007 B1
7325127 Olkin et al. Jan 2008 B2
7353204 Liu Apr 2008 B2
7363243 Arnett et al. Apr 2008 B2
7366759 Trevithick et al. Apr 2008 B2
7379913 Steele et al. May 2008 B2
7383282 Whitehead et al. Jun 2008 B2
7401087 Copperman et al. Jul 2008 B2
7412462 Margolus et al. Aug 2008 B2
7418397 Kojima et al. Aug 2008 B2
7444356 Calistri-Yeh et al. Oct 2008 B2
7457948 Bilicksa et al. Nov 2008 B1
7490092 Morton et al. Feb 2009 B2
7571177 Damle Aug 2009 B2
7698167 Batham et al. Apr 2010 B2
20020032735 Burnstein et al. Mar 2002 A1
20020065845 Naito May 2002 A1
20020065912 Catchpole et al. May 2002 A1
20020078090 Hwang et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020122543 Rowen Sep 2002 A1
20020184193 Cohen Dec 2002 A1
20030018637 Zhang Jan 2003 A1
20030130991 Reijerse et al. Jul 2003 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (4)
Number Date Country
1024437 Aug 2000 EP
1049030 Nov 2000 EP
0886227 Oct 2003 EP
0067162 Nov 2000 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (47)
Entry
F. Can, Incremental Clustering for Dynamic Information Processing: ACM Transactions on Information Systems, ACM, New York, NY, US, vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 143-164, XP-002308022 (Apr. 1993).
Jiang Linhui, “K-Mean Algorithm: Iterative Partitioning Clustering Algorithm,” http://www.cs.regina.ca/-linhui/K.sub.--mean.sub.--algorithm.html, (2001) Computer Science Department, University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada (2001).
Kazumasa Ozawa, “A Stratificational Overlapping Cluster Scheme,” Information Science Center, Osaka Electro-Communication University, Neyagawa-shi, Osaka 572, Japan, Pattern Recognition, vol. 18, pp. 279-286 (1985).
James Osborn et al., “Justice: A Jidicial Search Tool Using Intelligent Cencept Extraction,” Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Melbourne, Australia, ICAIL-99, 1999, pp. 173-181, ACM (1999).
Chen An et al., “Fuzzy Concept Graph and Application in Web Document Clustering,” IEEE, pp. 101-106 (2001).
Eades et al. “Multilevel Visualization of Clustered Graphs,” Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University if Newcastle, Australia, Proceedings of Graph Drawing '96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, NR. 1190, Sep. 18-Sep. 20, 1996, pp. 101-112, Berkeley, CA, USA, ISBN: 3-540-62495-3 (Sep. 18, 1996).
Bier et al. “Toolglass and Magic Lenses: The See-Through Interface”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Proceedings of Siggraph Annual International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 73-80, XP000879378 (Aug. 1993).
Davison et al., “Brute Force Estimation of the Number of Human Genes Using EST Clustering as a Measure,” IBM Journal of Research & Development, vol. 45, pp. 439-447 (May 2001).
Lam et al., “A Sliding Window Technique for Word Recognition,” SPIE, vol. 2422, pp. 38-46, Center of Excellence for Document Analysis and Recognition, State University of New Yrok at Baffalo, NY, USA (1995).
D. Sullivan, “Document Warehousing and Text Mining: Techniques for Improving Business Operations, Marketing and Sales,” Ch. 1-3, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (2001).
Artero, Almir Olivette., et al., Viz3D: Effective Exploratory Visualization of Lage Multidimensional Datasets, Oct. 20, 2004, IEEE, Computer Graphics and Image Processing 2004, pp. 340-347.
Baeza-Yates et al., “Modern Information Retrieval,” Ch. 2 “Modeling,” Modern Information Retrieval, Harlow: Addison-Wesley, Great Britain 1999, pp. 18-71 (1999).
Bernard, M. et al.: “Labeled Radial Drawing of Data Structures” Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Information Visualization, Infovis. IEEE Symposium, Jul. 16-18, 2003, Piscataway, NJ, USA, IEEE, Jul. 16, 2003, pp. 479-484, XP010648809, ISBN: 0-7695-1988-1.
Bier, E.A. et al. “Toolglass and Magic Lenses: The See-Through Interface”, Computer Graphics Proceedings, Proceedings of Siggraph Annual International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 73-80, XP000879378 (Aug. 1993).
Boukhelifa et al., “A Model and Software System for Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization,” Information Visualization, vol. 2003, No. 2, pp. 258-269, GB.
Can, F., Incremental Clustering for Dynamic Information Processing: ACM Transactions on Information Systems, ACM, New York, NY, US, vol. 11, No. 2, PD. 143-164, XP-002308022 (Apr. 1993).
Chen An et al., “Fuzzy Concept Graph and Application in Web Document Clustering,” 2001, pp. 101-106, IEEE.
Yip Chung, Christina., et al, “Thematic Mapping—From Unstructured Documents to Taxonomies,” CIKM'02, Nov. 4-9, 2002, pp. 608-610, ACM, McLean, Virginia, USA.
Eades, P. et al. “Multilevel Visualization of Clustered Graphs” Proceedings of Graph Drawing '96, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, NR. 1190, Sep. 18, 1996, Sep. 20, 1996 pp. 101-112, Berkeley, CA, USA, ISBN: 3-540-62495-3.
Eades, P. et al., “Orthogonal grid drawing of clustered graphs” Technical Report 96-04, [Online] 1996, University of Newcastle, AU Retrieved from the internet: URL:http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/eades96ort hogonal.html>[retrieved on May 29, 2006].
Estivill-Castro, V. et al. “AMOEBA; Hierarchical Clustering Based on Spatial Proximity using Delaunay Triangulation”, 1999 ACM Sigmod International Conference on Management of Data, vol. 28, No. 2, Jun. 1, 1999, Jun. 3, 1999 pp. 49-60, Philadelphia, PA.
Faber, Vance., “Clustering and the Continuous K-Means Algorithm,” Los Alamos Science, The Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, US, No. 22, Jan. 1, 1994, pp. 138-144.
Fekete, J. D. et al., “Excentric Labeling: Dynamic Neighborhood Labeling for Data Visualization,” CHI 1999 Conference Proceedings Human Factors in Computing Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 512-519 (May 15-20, 1999).
Inxight Vizserver, “Speeds and Simplifies the Exploration and Sharing of Information”, www.inxight.com/products/vizserver, copyright 2005.
Jain et al., “Data Clustering: A Review,” ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 31, No. 3, Sep. 1999, pp. 264-323, New York, NY, USA.
Kanugo et al., “The Analysis of a Simple K-Means Clustering Algorithm,” pp. 100-109, Proc 16th annual symposium of computational geometry (May 2000).
Kawano, Hiroyuki., “Overview of Mondou Web Search Engine Using Text Mining and Information Visualizing Technologies,” IEEE, 2001, pp. 234-241.
Kohonen, T., “Self-Organizing Maps,” Ch. 1.2, Springer-Verlag (3d ed. 2001).
Kurimo M., “Fast latent semantic indexing of spoken documents by using self-organizing maps” IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 6, Jun. 5, 2000 (Jun. 5, 2000), pp. 2425-2428, XP010504794.
Linhui, Jiang, “K-Mean Algorithm: Iterative Partitioning Clustering Algorithm,” http://www.cs.regina.ca/-linhui/K.sub.--mean.sub.--algorithm.html, (2001) Computer Science Department, University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Magarshak, Greg., Theory & Practice. Issue 01. May 2000. http://www.flipcode.com/articles/tp.sub.--issue01-pf.shtml.
Maria Cristin Maria Cristin Ferreira de Oliveira and Haim Levkowitz, From Visual Data Exploration to Visual Data Mining: A Survey, Jul.-Sep. 2003, IEEE,IEEE Transactions onVisualization and Computer Graphics vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 378-394.
McNee, Sean M., “Meeting User Information Needs in Recommended System.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, Jun. 2006.
Miller et al. Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization Conference. 1998, pp. 189-196. Topic Islands: A Wavelet Based Text Visualization System.
Osborn, James. et al., “Justice: A Judicial Search Tool Using Intelligent Concept Extraction,” ICAIL, 1999, pp. 173-181, ACM, Oslo, Norway.
Ozawa. A Stratificational Overlapping Cluster Scheme. Pattern Recogn. vol. 18. 1985.
Parsons Software, Complete Legal Collection 2001, a division of Mattel Interactive, Inc., Fremont, California.
Pelleg et al., “Accelerating Exact K-Means Algorithms With Geometric Reasoning,” pp. 277-281, CONF on Knowledge Discovery in Data, PROC fifth ACM SIGKDD (1999).
Rauber, Andreas., et al. Text Mining in the SOMLib Digital Library System: The Representation of Topics and Genres, 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Applied Intelligence 18, pp. 271-293.
Sachinopoulou, Anna., Multidimensional Visualization, 2001 VTT Publishers, VTT Research Notes 2114, pp. 1-37.
Shneiderman, Ben., et al. “A Taxonomy of Multiple Window Coordinations” Technical Report, University of Maryland, Computer Science Department [Online] No. CS-TR-3854, Maryland, USA, URL:http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitstream/1903/927/2/CS-TR-3854.p.
Slaney, M., et al., “Multimedia Edges: Finding Hierarchy in all Dimensions” Proc. 9-th ACM Intl. Conf. On Multimedia, ISBN.1-58113-394-4, Sep. 30, 2001 (Sep. 30, 2001), pp. 29-40, XP002295016 Ottawa.
Slaton G. et al., “Extended Boolean Information retrieval” Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, ACM, New York, NY, US., vol. 26, o. 12, Nov. 1, 1983, pig 1022-1036, XP000670417.
Strehl, A. et al., “Cluster Ensembles—A Knowledge Reuse Framework for Combining Partitioning,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, US, ISSN: 1533-7928, vol. 3, No. 12, pp. 583-617, XP002390603 (Dec. 2002).
Sullivan, Dan., “Document Warehousing and Text Mining: Techniques for Improving Business Operations, Marketing and Sales,” Ch. 1-3, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (2001).
Wang et al., “Learning text classifier using the domain concept hierarchy,” Communications, Circuits and Systems and West Sino Expositions, IEEE 2002 International Conference on Jun. 29-Jul. 1, 2002, Piscataway, NJ, USA, IEEE, vol. 2, pp. 1230-1234.
Whiting et al., Image Quantization: Statistics and Modeling. SPIE, vol. 3336, 1998, pp. 260-271.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20160078126 A1 Mar 2016 US
Continuations (7)
Number Date Country
Parent 14275802 May 2014 US
Child 14949829 US
Parent 13767849 Feb 2013 US
Child 14275802 US
Parent 13225325 Sep 2011 US
Child 13767849 US
Parent 12897710 Oct 2010 US
Child 13225325 US
Parent 11964000 Dec 2007 US
Child 12897710 US
Parent 11304406 Dec 2005 US
Child 11964000 US
Parent 09944474 Aug 2001 US
Child 11304406 US