The present invention is related to document retrieval and categorization, as well as information searches, and more specifically to a computer-performed method, computer system and computer program product for document tagging and retrieval using per-subject dictionaries that include entries that are distinguished as between entity and non-entity entries.
Information storage and retrieval in computer systems is an ever-evolving technology as collections of data become progressively larger and more complex. So-called “big data” involves collection of large amounts of data that may be essentially unfiltered and uncategorized. While businesses, government and other entities would like to capitalize on information that can be gleaned from such large collections of data, techniques to efficiently retrieve a manageable amount of information in response to a query are needed.
Retrieval of data from present-day databases and other more loosely-coupled information sources such as the Internet is typically performed by either crawler-based indexing, in which software engines obtain indexing information from stored documents, or from human-built directories that categorize the stored documents. However, once the data source becomes sufficiently large, the size of the response to a query also grows.
Therefore, it would be desirable to provide a method, computer system and computer program that can more efficiently handle categorization of documents and retrieval of documents in response to queries.
The invention is embodied in a computer-performed method, computer program product and computer system that can efficiently categorize and retrieve documents. The method is a method of operation of the computer system, which executes the computer program product to carry out the steps of the method.
The method stores entries in multiple dictionaries that are each associated with a different subject. The entries contain descriptive terms, of which some entries are designated as entities by an indicator included in the entry. A dictionary may contain an entity and a non-entity entry for a descriptive term, and may include multiple entities for an entry, if they exist. Entities may be brands (trademarks/service marks), trade names, geographic identifiers or other classes of terms having special meaning. The entries may also include corresponding subject-determining-power scores that indicate the relative strength or weakness of the descriptive terms with respect to the subject associated with the containing dictionary.
The foregoing and other objectives, features, and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following, more particular, description of the preferred embodiment of the invention, as illustrated in the accompanying drawings.
The novel features believed characteristic of the invention are set forth in the appended claims. The invention itself, however, as well as a preferred mode of use, further objectives, and advantages thereof, will best be understood by reference to the following detailed description of the invention when read in conjunction with the accompanying Figures, wherein like reference numerals indicate like components, and:
The present invention relates to document tagging and retrieval, and in particular to techniques for identifying and retrieving files in big data collections. Multiple dictionaries, each having a corresponding subject, contain terms that are associated with the subject, i.e., the terms that ordinarily occur in association with the subject in written documents. Thus, a term may occur across multiple dictionaries, but have a different meaning or descriptive power with respect to different subjects. Some of the terms or entries, are indicated as entities, thus the dictionary system distinguishes between entity and non-entity terms. A dictionary may include a non-entity and one or more entity entries for a single term, as a term may have multiple entity meanings. Entities may be brands (trademarks/service marks), trade names, geographic identifiers or other classes of terms having special meaning. The term entries in each dictionary have a code or other indicator that specifies whether or not the term is an entity, and an entity type for terms that are entities.
The term entries in each dictionary may also have a score value associated with the term and stored in the dictionary along with the term. The score value is a “subject-determining-power score” (SDP score) that is an indicator of the power of the term to determine the subject of a query, a document, or other item associated with the term. For example, an SDP score may be used to weight terms used to tag a document, according to how strongly they indicate that the document concerns a particular subject. A tag is stored information that is descriptive in some manner of an associated document. The tag can be stored in the document itself, e.g., as metadata in a header, or the tag may be stored separately from the document, e.g., in a database containing a link to the document. The process of tagging is generating or selecting the tag information and storing it in a manner that associates the tag(s) with the document. Tagging can occur when a document is first added to a collection, which may be storage of the document in a particular storage location, or may be insertion of a link to the document in a database, or tagging may occur subsequently. Tags can be altered as new information about a document is available, as subjects/categories are added to the dictionaries, or as the dictionaries are updated with new terms and/or new SDP scores.
Documents are retrieved by identifying documents from a collection and returning the documents to a requesting entity. The particular documents returned and the particular order of the documents can be determined by the quality of a match of the documents to one or more subjects determined from the contents of a query. The response to a query can differ. One possible response includes copying the documents to a predetermined location, such as a directory that has been specified or created to receive the results of the query. Another possible response is generation of a file that contains a list of document identifiers, e.g., file pathnames or links, in order of priority, and optionally including a match-score associated with each document. A third option is generation of an html document, e.g., html browser page that provides links to the documents in the order of priority, e.g. ordered by quality of the match of the individual documents to the query.
As mentioned above, dictionaries, as referred to herein, are subject-specific lists of terms along with indications of entity type (including non-entity) and differentiating SDP scores for the terms. A term can be a single word or multiple words, and can potentially include letters, numbers, punctuation, etc. The same term may appear in the dictionaries for different subjects and as both entity and non-entity entries with different SDP scores for each entry. In essence, an SDP score for a particular term for a particular subject indicates how strongly the appearance of the term suggests the term concerns the particular subject. Terms can be single words or multi-words, e.g., War of 1812. When processing queries or documents to discover terms, standard text pre-processing can be performed before any of the analytical steps, such as phrase detection using punctuation or detection of separators such as the, and, more, etc., which can be removed from the text. Similarly, stemming can be performed to reduce or expand words of a single root to a single term, e.g., the word “acted” may be stemmed to the word “act.” Natural language processing (NLP) techniques can be used to distinguish partial terms in a query and to determine when a term is used as an entity or non-entity, allowing the identification of terms that are used as entities, which are then marked in order to use the term-entity combinations as unique terms. In processing queries, entities may be further identified by a user classification, such as selecting an entity type from a pull-down menu when hovering over the term in a query input text entry box.
Dictionaries can also be used for the task of entity-labeling. Dictionary-assisted entity-labeling differs from dictionary-assisted document tagging and document retrieval in that the document text may be modified or enhanced. In dictionary-assisted entity-labeling, entity labeling can be performed dynamically as a document is matched to a dictionary. For example, a new document may have an overall strong match to a collection of terms in a bicycle dictionary. If the bicycle dictionary contains RALEIGH labeled as a brand entity, for example due to parsing earlier documents that yielded a strong indication that RALEIGH is sometimes used as a brand identifier, RALEIGH can be labeled as a brand entity in the new document, with an optional confidence score. Alternatively, a “Bicycle brands” or a “Brands” dictionary containing RALEIGH may be used to identify the use of brand entity RALEIGH in a collection of documents.
Another option for document retrieval uses an entity label to aid in searching when a search term is not found in the dictionaries. Specifically, if document tags contain terms in addition to dictionary match information, the document retrieval process can return documents with the relevant entity in their tags. If the tags contain only dictionary-match information, not terms, documents that have terms that match entity terms in dictionaries can be returned. An example is a search for “9182<tax doc #>.” If “9182” does not occur in any dictionary, documents that match to a dictionary that contains entity “tax doc #” can be returned. For example search “9182<tax doc #>” may return a document that matches well to an “IRS” dictionary which contain entries such as: “1040<tax doc #>” and “W2<tax doc #>.” The set of entity types is generally finite, but can be customized, e.g., for an enterprise. Entity types may be selected, for example, from a pull-down menu, which may be for individual search terms, or for an entire query or session.
Referring to
Workstation computer system 10A also includes a hard disc controller HDC 14 that interfaces processor CPU to local storage device 17A and a network interface NWI that couples workstation computer system 10A to network 15, which may be fully wireless, fully wired or any type of hybrid network. Network interface NWI provides access to network resources, such as remote storage provided by networked storage devices 17B and 17C, which are coupled to network 15 by network disc controller (NWDC) 18. An external database DB may provide storage for documents, dictionaries, query results and other information discussed herein, alternatively document collection interfaces 11A and 11B may perform database organization, with the above-listed items stored as files in local storage device 17A or networked storage devices 17B and 17C. Workstation computer system 10B has an internal organization similar to that depicted in workstation computer system 10A and is also coupled to network 15.
Network 15 may include wireless local area networks (WLANs), wired local-area networks (LANs), wide-area networks (WANs) or any other suitable interconnection that provides communication between workstation computer systems 10A and 10B, storage devices 17A-17C, external database DB and any other systems and devices coupled to network 15. The present invention concerns document storage and retrieval functionality that is not limited to a specific computer system or network configuration. Finally, the specification workstation computer systems 10A and 10B and the location of their specific memory MEM and document collection interfaces 11A and 11B does not imply a specific client-server relationship or hierarchical organization, as the techniques of the present invention may be employed in distributed systems in which no particular machine is identified as a server. However, at least one of the machines provides an instance and functionality of an object or interface that performs document storage and retrieval in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The objects or interfaces implementing document collection interfaces 11A and 11B process information according to methods and structures of the present invention, as described in further detail below.
Referring now to
Referring now to
Also illustrated in
Referring now to
One manner in which the tagging information associated with a single document may be organized is to include the search terms in the tagging information along with the subject and SDP scores, such as illustrated in Table 1 below:
In the Example given above, once a candidate subject has selected, the terms having the top SDP scores (e.g., top 100 terms) may be inserted into the document tagging information in order to generalize the intersection between potential query terms and the document tag information. So, for example, in the above illustration, if the search terms Schwinn and Frame are included in a query, then the values for Schwinn and Frame for the subject Bicycle can be weighted by the confidence value to yield a measure of match for the document, i.e., 0.5×(10+3)=6.5. For example, if three documents having the following entries are matched to the above-query, as illustrated in Table 2 below, then the following match calculations can result.
So the search result should return the ordered list <doc 1, doc 3>.
In another form of tag information, a match step has previously been carried out between the documents that are candidates for retrieval and the dictionaries as described above, and the match scores are stored in the tags. Example strategies for carrying out retrieval using such documents are described below.
Strategy 1: 1st Place Search-Text Match
First, a vector multiplication as described above is performed and a top-matching dictionary t is identified using the text of the query, which in this strategy is used instead of the text of the document. The method then returns all candidate documents having a top-matching dictionary t and then proceeds to documents having a next-to-top matching dictionary t, and so forth until the documents have been exhausted or a threshold number of documents has been found. The documents can optionally be returned in order of a strength of match between the document and t.
Strategy 2: Nth Place Search-Text Match
First, the vector multiplication as described above is performed and a top-matching dictionary t1, second top-matching dictionary t2, third top-matching dictionary t3, and so forth, are identified using the text of the query. The method then returns all candidate documents having a top-matching dictionary t1 and then proceeds to documents having a top matching dictionary t2, and so forth until the documents have been exhausted or a threshold number of documents has been found. The documents can optionally be returned in order of a strength of match between the document and the various dictionaries.
The dictionary-assisted retrieval techniques described above provides search expansion. Search text is matched to dictionaries, which will generally contain more terms than the search text itself. Since retrieval is done using dictionaries, terms in the dictionaries outside the search text can play a role in identifying relevant documents. For example, “fetlock” is a high subject-determining-power word for the subject “horses”. If a search text contains words like “saddle,” “ride,” and “horse,” it may match well to the horse dictionary, which in turn will match to candidate documents that have the word “fetlock” in them. Such candidate documents may not have any of the words “saddle”, “ride” or “horse” in them, but could have been identified as being on the subject “horses” by virtue of their using the high-SDP term “fetlock.”
The query text can be a list of words, as would be used in a typical Internet search engine query, or the query itself can be a document, (e.g., a patent abstract). Note that a document query input may have repeated terms. When repeated terms are present in a query, one option is to use only the unique terms as the query text. Another option is to use the query text as-is, which will cause actions based on term-occurrence to be repeated for repeated terms, which increases the weight accorded to repeated terms.
Referring now to
Referring now to
As noted above, portions of the present invention may be embodied in a computer program product, which may include firmware, an image in system memory or another memory/cache, or stored on a fixed or re-writable media such as an optical disc having computer-readable code stored thereon. Any combination of one or more computer-readable medium(s) may store a program in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. The computer-readable medium may be a computer-readable signal medium or a computer-readable storage medium. A computer-readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer-readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
In the context of the present application, a computer-readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. A computer-readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer-readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer-readable signal medium may be any computer-readable medium that is not a computer-readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. Program code embodied on a computer-readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
While the invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to the preferred embodiments thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the foregoing and other changes in form, and details may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention.
The present application is a Continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/055,379, filed on Oct. 16, 2013, and published as U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150106376 on Apr. 16, 2015, and claims priority thereto under 35 U.S.C. 120. The disclosure of the above-referenced parent U.S. patent application is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5404514 | Kageneck et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5715468 | Budzinski | Feb 1998 | A |
6038561 | Snyder | Mar 2000 | A |
6098066 | Snow | Aug 2000 | A |
6377949 | Gilmour | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6473730 | McKeown et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6510434 | Anderson et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519581 | Hofmann et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6546002 | Kim | Apr 2003 | B1 |
7069505 | Tamano | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7185001 | Burdick et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7401087 | Copperman et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7676462 | Kirkland et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
8019748 | Wu et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
8180783 | Fletcher et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8600979 | Kim et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8639682 | Cumby et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
9430559 | Gattiker et al. | Aug 2016 | B2 |
20020022956 | Ukrainczyk et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20030061200 | Hubert | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030061201 | Grefenstette | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030158839 | Faybishenko et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040024739 | Copperman | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20050022114 | Shanahan | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050256889 | McConnell | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050289168 | Green et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060101102 | Su et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060235843 | Musgrove et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20080082486 | Lermant et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080140684 | O'Reilly | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090006391 | Ram | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090094020 | Marvit et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090198669 | Shaw et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090222395 | Light | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090292686 | Carter et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100131507 | Pradhan et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100198816 | Kwan | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100293174 | Bennett et al. | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110125791 | Konig et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
20110184932 | Hennum et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110208776 | Lee et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110320186 | Butters et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120078902 | Duboue et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120158703 | Li et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20130173604 | Li et al. | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20140337357 | Gattiker et al. | Nov 2014 | A1 |
20150106376 | Gattiker et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150134666 | Gattiker et al. | May 2015 | A1 |
20160041975 | Gattiker et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160299967 | Gattiker et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2010106718 | Oct 2010 | KR |
WO 2007008263 | Jan 2007 | WO |
WO 2012040673 | Mar 2012 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Godoy, et al., “Modeling User Interests by Conceptual Clustering,” ISISTAN Research Institute, UNICEN University Campus Universitario, Tandil (7000), Jan. 18, 2005, pp. 247-265, Buenos Aires, Argentina. |
Software Patent Institute, “A Framework for Basic Research on Mechanized Information Storage, Search and Selection,” IP.com No. IPCOM000128819D, Sep. 19, 2005, 19 pages (pp. 1-19 in pdf). |
IBM, “System and Method to Refine Search Terms for Repetitive Search Queries Based on Explicit User Feedback,” IP.com No. IPCOM000160889D, Dec. 3, 2007, 3 pages (pp. 1-3 in pdf). |
Anonymous, “Parse Search Terms in Content Discovery,” IP.com No. IPCOM000203097D, Jan. 19, 2011, 4 pages (pp. 1-4 in pdf). |
IBM, “Enhancing the Classification, Organization, and Mining of Unstructured Data Using Second and Higher Order Meta-Tags,” IP.com No. IPCOM000143547D, Nov. 28, 2006, 4 pages (pp. 1-4 in pdf). |
Anonymous, “Complex Data Tags,” IP.com No. IPCOM000214383D, Jan. 24, 2012, 5 pages (pp. 1-5 in pdf). |
Gurumurthy, et al., “Method and System for Sharing Search Queries and Search Results,” IP.com No. IPCOM000210142D, Aug. 26, 2011, 3 pages (pp. 1-3 in pdf). |
Manning, et al., “An Introduction to Information Retrieval,” Apr. 2009, pp. 349-375 (pp. 1-27 in pdf), Cambridge University Press, downloaded from: http://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/flat-clustering-1.html on Sep. 3, 2013. |
Manning, et al., “An Introduction to Information Retrieval,” Apr. 2009, pp. 253-287 (pp. 1-35 in pdf), Cambridge University Press, downloaded from: http://nlp.stanford.edu/IR-book/html/htmledition/text-classification-and-naive-bayes-1.html on Sep. 3, 2013. |
Castillo, et al., “Automatic Assignment of Domain Labels to WordNet”, Proceedings of the 2nd International WordNet Conference, Jan. 2004, pp. 75-82, Brno, Czech Republic. |
Kamat, et al., “Understanding Users Intent by Deducing Domain Knowledge Hidden in Web Search Query Keywords”, International Journal of Computer Applications, Apr. 2013, pp. 17-20, vol. 67, No. 15 , IJCA Journal. |
Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/055,379 dated Jun. 4, 2015, 23 pages (pp. 1-23 in pdf). |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 14/055,379 dated Sep. 30, 2015, 24 pages (pp. 1-24 in pdf). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160034484 A1 | Feb 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14055379 | Oct 2013 | US |
Child | 14881453 | US |