The present invention relates in general to text mining and, in particular, to a computer-implemented system and method for populating clusters of documents.
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 particular, the transition from syntactic to semantic content analysis requires a shift in focus from the grammatical level to the meta level. At a syntactic level, documents are viewed structurally as sentences comprising individual terms and phrases. In contrast, at a semantic level, documents are viewed in terms of meaning Terms and phrases are grouped into clusters representing individual concepts and themes.
Data clustering allows the concepts and themes to be developed more fully based on the extracted syntactic information. A balanced set of clusters reflects terms and phrases from every document in a document set. Each document may be included in one or more clusters. Conversely, concepts and themes are preferably distributed over a meaningful range of clusters.
Creating an initial set of clusters from a document set is crucial to properly visualizing the semantic content. Generally, a priori knowledge of semantic content is unavailable when forming clusters from unstructured documents. The difficulty of creating an initial clusters set is compounded when evaluating different types of documents, such as electronic mail (email) and word processing documents, particularly when included in the same document set.
In the prior art, several data clustering techniques are known. Exhaustive matching techniques fit each document into one of a pre-defined and fixed number of clusters using a closest-fit approach. However, this approach forces an arbitrary number of clusters onto a document set and can skew the meaning of the semantic content mined from the document set.
A related prior art clustering technique performs gap analysis in lieu of exhaustive matching. Gaps in the fit of points of data between successive passes are merged if necessary to form groups of documents into clusters. However, gap analysis is computational inefficient, as multiple passes through a data set are necessary to effectively find a settled set of clusters.
Therefore, there is a need for an approach to forming clusters of concepts and themes into groupings of classes with shared semantic meanings Such an approach would preferably categorize concepts mined from a document set into clusters defined within a pre-specified range of variance. Moreover, such an approach would not require a priori knowledge of the data content.
The present invention provides a system and method for generating logical clusters of documents in a multi-dimensional concept space for modeling semantic meaning Each document in a set of unstructured documents is first analyzed for syntactic content by extracting literal terms and phrases. The semantic content is then determined by modeling the extracted terms and phrases in multiple dimensions. Histograms of the frequency of occurrences of the terms and phrases in each document and over the entire document set are generated. Related documents are identified by finding highly correlated term and phrase pairings. These pairings are then used to calculate Euclidean distances between individual documents. Those documents corresponding to concepts separated by a Euclidean distance falling within a predetermined variance are grouped into clusters by k-means clustering. The remaining documents are grouped into new clusters. The clusters can be used to visualize the semantic content.
An embodiment of the present invention is a system and a method for building a multi-dimensional semantic concept space over a stored document collection. A plurality of documents within a stored document collection containing substantially correlated terms reflecting syntactic content are identified. A vector reflecting semantic similarities between substantially correlated documents at an angle θ from a common axis in a concept space is generated. One or more clusters are formed at an angle σ from the common axis in the concept space. Each cluster includes documents having such an angle θ falling within a predefined variance of the angle σ for the cluster. A new cluster is constructed at an angle σ from the common axis in the concept space. Each new cluster includes documents having such an angle θ falling outside the predefined variance of the angle σ for the remaining clusters.
A further embodiment provides a computer-implemented system and method for populating clusters of documents. A set of clusters is placed in a display in relation to a common origin. One of a plurality of unclustered documents in the display is selected and an angle θ of the document from the common origin is determined. An angle σ of the cluster relative to the common origin is computed for each cluster. A difference is determined between the document angle θ and one such cluster angle σ. A predetermined variance is applied to the difference. The document is placed into the cluster when the difference is less than the variance.
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.
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.
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 47 of concept occurrences, as further described below with reference to
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
Once identified and retrieved, the set of documents 45 is analyzed (block 73), as further described below with reference to
Following preprocessing, a histogram 50 of the frequency of terms (shown in
Next, a document reference frequency (corpus) graph 51, as further described below with reference to
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 of concepts and themes are created (block 86) from groups of highly-correlated terms and phrases, as further described below with reference to
Initially, noun phrases are extracted (block 91) from each document 45. 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
Referring back to
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.
Each cluster consists of a set of documents that share related terms and phrases as mapped in a multi-dimensional concept space. Those documents having identical terms and phrases mapped to a single cluster located along a vector at a distance (magnitude) d measured at an angle θ from a common origin relative to the multi-dimensional concept space. Accordingly, a Euclidean distance between the individual concepts can be determined and clusters created.
Initially, a variance specifying an upper bound on Euclidean distances in the multi-dimensional concept space is determined (block 151). In the described embodiment, a variance of five percent is specified, although other variance values, either greater or lesser than five percent, could be used as appropriate to the data profile. As well, an internal counter num_clusters is set to the initial value of 1 (block 152).
The documents and clusters are iteratively processed in a pair of nested processing loops (blocks 153-164 and 156-161). During each iteration of the outer processing loop (blocks 153-164), each document i is processed (block 153) for every document in the document set. Each document i is first selected (block 154) and the angle θ relative to a common origin is computed (block 155).
During each iterative loop of the inner processing loop (block 156-161), the selected document i is compared to the existing set of clusters. Thus, a cluster j is selected (block 157) and the angle σ relative to the common origin is computed (block 158). Note the angle σ must be recomputed regularly for each cluster j as documents are added or removed. The difference between the angle θ for the document i and the angle σ for the cluster j is compared to the predetermined variance (block 159). If the difference is less than the predetermined variance (block 159), the document i is put into the cluster j (block 160) and the iterative processing loop (block 156-161) is terminated. If the difference is greater than or equal to the variance (block 159), the next cluster j is processed (block 161) and processing continues for each of the current clusters (blocks 156-161).
If the difference between the angle θ for the document i and the angle σ for each of the clusters exceeds the variance, a new cluster is created (block 162) and the counter num_clusters is incremented (block 163). Processing continues with the next document i (block 164) until all documents have been processed (blocks 153-164). The categorization of clusters is repeated (block 165) if necessary. In the described embodiment, the cluster categorization (blocks 153-164) is repeated at least once until the set of clusters settles. Finally, the clusters can be finalized (block 165) as an optional step. Finalization includes merging two or more clusters into a single cluster, splitting a single cluster into two or more clusters, removing minimal or outlier clusters, and similar operations, as would be recognized by one skilled in the art. The routine then returns.
Each cluster 193-196 represents multi-dimensional data modeled in a three-dimensional display space. The data could be visualized data for a virtual semantic concept space, including semantic content extracted from a collection of documents represented by weighted clusters of concepts, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 6,978,274, issued Dec. 20, 2005, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.
For each cluster 193, the radii r 201-204 and distances d 197-200 are independent variables relative to the other clusters 194-196 and the radius r 201 is an independent variable relative to the common origin 192. In this example, each cluster 193-196 represents a grouping of points corresponding to documents sharing a common set of related terms and phrases. The radii 201-204 of each cluster 193-196 reflect the relative number of documents contained in each cluster. Those clusters 193-197 located along the same vector are similar in theme as are those clusters located on vectors having a small cosign rotation from each other. Thus, the angle θ relative to a common axis' distance from a common origin 192 is an independent variable within a correlation between the distance d and angle θ relative similarity of theme. Although shown with respect to a circular shape, each cluster 193-196 could be non-circular. At a minimum, however, each cluster 193-196 must have a center of mass and be oriented around the common origin 192 and must define a convex volume. Accordingly, other shapes defining each cluster 193-196 are feasible.
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.
This non-provisional patent application is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,650,190, issued Feb. 11, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 8,402,026, issued Mar. 19, 2013, which is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 6,778,995, issued Aug. 17, 2004, the priority dates of which are claimed and the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.
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 |
5056021 | Ausborn | Oct 1991 | A |
5121338 | Lodder | Jun 1992 | A |
5133067 | Hara et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5278980 | Pedersen et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5371673 | Fan | Dec 1994 | A |
5442778 | Pedersen et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5477451 | Brown et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5488725 | Turtle et al. | 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 |
5737734 | Schultz | Apr 1998 | A |
5754938 | Herz et al. | May 1998 | A |
5794236 | Mehrle | Aug 1998 | A |
5799276 | Komissarchik et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5819258 | Vaithyanathan et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5842203 | D'Elena et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5844991 | Hochberg et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5857179 | Vaithyanathan et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5860136 | Fenner | Jan 1999 | A |
5862325 | Reed et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864846 | Voorhees et al. | 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 |
5920854 | Kirsch et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5924105 | Punch et al. | 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 |
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 |
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 et al. | 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 et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6260038 | Martin et al. | 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 et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6377287 | Hao et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381601 | Fujiwara et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389433 | Bolosky 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 et al. | 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 et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6484196 | Maurille | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6493703 | Knight et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496822 | Rosenfelt et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6502081 | Wiltshire 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 et al. | 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 |
6785679 | Dane et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
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 et al. | 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 | Hoshino 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 | Donoho 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 | Sibley et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7571177 | Damle | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7698167 | Batham et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
8312019 | Evans | Nov 2012 | B2 |
20020032735 | Burnstein et al. | Mar 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 |
20030130991 | Reijerse et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1024437 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1049030 | Nov 2000 | EP |
0886227 | Oct 2003 | EP |
WO0067162 | Nov 2000 | WO |
Entry |
---|
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). |
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). |
Shuldberg et al., “Distilling Information from Text: The EDS TemplateFiller System,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol. 44, pp. 493-507 (1993). |
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). |
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. 1996). |
Eades et al., “Orthogonal Grid Drawing of Clustered Graphs,” Department of Computer Science, the University of Newcastle, Australia, Technical Report 96-04, [Online] 1996, Retrieved from the internet: URL: http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/eades96ort hogonal.html (1996). |
http://em-ntserver.unl.edu/Math/mathweb/vecors/vectors.html © 1997. |
North et al. “A Taxonomy of Multiple Window Coordinations,” Institute for Systems Research & Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA, http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/927/2/CS-TR-3854.pdf (1997). |
Ryall et al., “An Interactive Constraint-Based System for Drawing Graphs,” UIST '97 Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 97-104 (1997). |
Whiting et al., “Image Quantization: Statistics and Modeling,” SPIE Conference of Physics of Medical Imaging, San Diego, CA, USA , vol. 3336, pp. 260-271 (Feb. 1998). |
B.B. Hubbard, “The World According the Wavelet: The Story of a Mathematical Technique in the Making,” AK Peters (2nd ed.), pp. 227-229, Massachusetts, USA (1998). |
R.E. Horn, “Communication Units, Morphology, and Syntax,” Visual Language: Global Communication for the 21st Century, 1998, Ch. 3, pp. 51-92, MacroVU Press, Bainbridge Island, Washington, USA (1998). |
Miller et al., “Topic Islands: A Wavelet Based Text Visualization System,” Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization Conference. 1998, pp. 189-196. |
Fekete 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). |
Estivill-Castro et al. “Amoeba: Hierarchical Clustering Based on Spatial Proximity Using Delaunaty Diagram”, Department of Computer Science, The University of Newcastle, Australia, 1999 ACM Sigmod International Conference on Management of Data, vol. 28, No. 2, Jun. 1999, pp. 49-60, Philadelphia, PA, USA (Jun. 1999). |
Lio et al., “Funding Pathogenicity Islands and Gene Transfer Events in Genome Data,” Bioinformatics, vol. 16, pp. 932-940, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, UK (Jan. 25, 2000). |
Magarshak, Theory & Practice. Issue 01. May 17, 2000. http://www.flipcode.com/articles/tp.sub.--issue01-pf.shtml (May 17, 2000). |
Kurimo,“Fast Latent Semantic Indexing of Spoken Documents by Using Self-Organizing Maps” IEEE International Conference Accoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 6, pp. 2425-2428 (Jun. 2000). |
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). |
Anna Sachinopoulou, “Multidimensional Visualization,” Technical Research Centre of Finland, ESPOO 2001, VTT Research Notes 2114, pp. 1-37 (2001). |
Kohonen, “Self-Organizing Maps,” Ch. 1-2, Springer-Verlag (3rd ed.) (2001). |
Hiroyuki Kawano, “Overview of Mondou Web Search Engine Using Text Mining and Information Visualizing Technologies,” IEEE, 2001, pp. 234-241. |
James Osborn et al “Justice: A Judicial Search Tool Using Intelligent Concept Extraction,” ICAIL-99, 1999, pp. 173-181, ACM. |
Chen An et al “Fuzzy Concept Graph and Application in Web Document Clustering,” 2001, pp. 101-106, IEEE. |
F. Can., “Incremental Clustering for Dynamic Information Processing,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 143-164 (Apr. 1993). |
D. Sullivan, “Document Warehousing and Text Mining, Techniques for Improving Business Operations, Marketing, and Sales,” Chs. 1-3, Wiley Computer Publishing (2001). |
Linhui, Jiang, “K-Mean Algorithm: Iterative Partitioning Clustering Algorithm,”http://www.cs.regina.ca/˜linhui/K—mean—algorithm.html, (2001) Computer Science Department, University of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada. |
Kanungo et al., “The Analysis of a Simple K-Means Clustering Algorithm,” pp. 100-109, Proc 16th annual symposium of computational geometry (May 2000). |
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). |
Jain et al., “Data Clustering: A Review,” vol. 31, No. 3, ACM Computing surveys, (Sep. 1999). |
Baeza-Yates et al., “Modern Information Retrieval,” Ch. 2 “Modeling,” Modern Information Retrieval, Harlow: Addison-Wesley, Great Britain 1999, pp. 18-71 (1999). |
Vance Faber: “Clustering and the Continuous K-Means Algorithm,” Los Alamos Science, The Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, US, No. 22, pp. 138-144 (Jan. 1, 1994). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140156664 A1 | Jun 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13831565 | Mar 2013 | US |
Child | 14174800 | US | |
Parent | 10911376 | Aug 2004 | US |
Child | 13831565 | US | |
Parent | 09943918 | Aug 2001 | US |
Child | 10911376 | US |