1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to generating alternative user inputs. More specifically, systems and methods to generate modified or refined user inputs based on an original user input, such as a search query, are disclosed.
2. Description of Related Art
Many users often modify or refine, sometimes repeatedly, their original search query during a given search session. For example, the user may modify an original search query to a more specific search query, a broader search query, and/or a search query using alternative query terms until desired search results are generated. User search query refinement occurs with queries in Roman-based languages, e.g., English, as well as with queries in non-Roman-based languages, e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean (CJK), Thai, etc. Users typically modify or refine their search queries when the original search query did not yield a good set of search results, e.g., if the search query is too specific or too broad or if the search query used improper terms. For example, the original user search query may yield too many irrelevant results when one or more of the search terms are ambiguous and some of the returned documents are related to a meaning of the ambiguous search term that is different from what the user intended and/or when the user is interested in only one aspect of a given search term among the many aspects of the search term. The original user search query may also yield too many irrelevant results when the user is merely exploring concepts related to a given search term.
Many search engines offer a list of suggested search queries related the user's original search query. For example, if a user's original search query is “Amazon,” the search engine may suggest other related search queries such as “Amazon.com”, “Amazon Rainforest”, and “Amazon River.” Search query suggestion may be particularly useful for non-Roman based language users such as CJK users. Specifically, non-Roman based language users may prefer clicking or selecting a suggested search query over typing modified search queries because non-Roman-based languages generally have a large set of characters and each character may require several keystrokes using a conventional Roman-based keyboard. For example, many Chinese language users use pinyin (phonetic spelling) to input Chinese characters. The conventional pinyin input system typically converts a pinyin input and provides a list of candidate Chinese character sets from which the user may select the intended set of Chinese characters. As is evident, the multi-step input process may be tedious and time-consuming.
Search query suggestion may also be useful for Roman-based language users. Many search engines, such as YAHOO, TEOMA, ALTA VISTA, ASKJEEVES, ALLTHEWEB, and BAIDU offer such as feature in the form of related search, query refinement, or query clustering.
Systems and methods to generate modified or refined user inputs based on an original user input, such as a search query, are disclosed. It should be appreciated that the present invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus, a system, a device, a method, or a computer readable medium such as a computer readable storage medium or a computer network wherein program instructions are sent over optical or electronic communication lines. The term computer generally refers to any device with computing power such as personal digital assistants (PDAs), cellular telephones, and network switches. Several inventive embodiments of the present invention are described below.
The method may be applied to queries in a non-Roman based language such as Chinese. The method may generally include receiving and identifying core terms in an original user input, determining potential alternative user inputs by replacing core term(s) in the original input with another term according to a similarity matrix and/or substituting a sequence of words in the original input with another sequence of words according to an expansion/contraction table, one sequence being a substring of the other sequence, computing likelihoods of the potential alternative user inputs, and selecting most likely alternative user inputs according to a predetermined criteria, e.g., the likelihood of each selected alternative user input is at least that of the original user input. The method may also include determining whether the original user input is in a pre-computed cache of suggested alternative user inputs and, if so, outputting pre-computed most likely alternative use inputs stored in the pre-computed cache.
The similarity matrix may be generated using a corpus and may have similarity values between two similar terms including phrasal terms such as “New York” and “Los Angeles” which may have a very high similarity although each pair of corresponding terms (New and Los and York and Angeles) does not have high similarity. In one embodiment, the similarity matrix can be generated by constructing feature vectors for words in the corpus and determining a similarity value between two words/phrases using their feature vectors.
The expansion/contraction table may be generated from a user input database and may have a frequency value associated with each pair of sequence of terms. In one embodiment, the expansion/contraction table may be generated by determining frequent word sequences, filtering out non-phrasal word sequences, and associating a count with each sequence of terms as the frequency value. Merely to illustrate, an example of an entry in the expansion/contraction table may be “The United States of America” and “United States.”
The likelihoods of the potential alternative user inputs may be computed by determining at least one of: (a) a relevance between the original user input and the potential alternative user input, (b) a probability that the potential alternative user input will be selected by the user, and (c) a score of the position for the potential alternative user input. In particular, the relevance between the original user input and the potential alternative user input may be determined using correlation values between aligned terms of the original input and the potential alternative user input.
In another embodiment, a system for suggesting alternative user inputs generally includes a suggestion/refinement server configured to receive an original user input having at least one core term, to identify the core terms in the original user input, to determine potential alternative user inputs by performing at least one of (a) replacing at least one core term in the original user input with another term according to a similarity matrix, the similarity matrix having a similarity value between the two terms and (b) substituting a sequence of words in the original user input with another sequence of words according to an expansion/contraction table, one sequence being a substring of the other sequence, the expansion/contraction table having a frequency value associated with each sequence of terms, to compute likelihoods of the potential alternative user inputs, and to select and output most likely alternative user inputs according to a predetermined criteria.
In yet another embodiment, a computer program product for suggesting alternative user inputs is used in conjunction with a computer system, the computer program product including a computer readable storage medium on which are stored instructions executable on a computer processor. The instructions may generally include receiving and identifying core terms in an original user input, determining potential alternative user inputs by replacing core term(s) in the original input with another term according to a similarity matrix and/or substituting a sequence of words in the original input with another sequence of words according to an expansion/contraction table, one sequence being a substring of the other sequence, computing likelihoods of the potential alternative user inputs and optionally a predicted user satisfaction with the potential alternative user inputs, and selecting most likely alternative user inputs according to a predetermined criteria, e.g., the likelihood of each selected alternative user input is at least that of the original user input.
An application implementing the system and method may be implemented on a server site such as on a search engine or may be implemented, e.g., downloaded, on a client site such as a user's computer to provide suggested alternative inputs or to interface with a remote server such as a search engine.
These and other features and advantages of the present invention will be presented in more detail in the following detailed description and the accompanying figures which illustrate by way of example principles of the invention.
The present invention will be readily understood by the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements.
Systems and methods to generate modified or refined user inputs based on an original user input, such as a search query, are disclosed. It is noted that for purposes of clarity only, the examples presented herein are generally presented in terms of Chinese query inputs. However, the systems and methods for suggesting refined/modified user inputs may be similarly applicable for other non-Roman based languages such as Japanese, Korean, Thai, etc., as well as Roman-based languages. In addition, the systems and methods for suggesting refined/modified user inputs may be similarly applicable for other non-query user inputs. The following description is presented to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. Descriptions of specific embodiments and applications are provided only as examples and various modifications will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art. The general principles defined herein may be applied to other embodiments and applications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Thus, the present invention is to be accorded the widest scope encompassing numerous alternatives, modifications and equivalents consistent with the principles and features disclosed herein. For purpose of clarity, details relating to technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the invention have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure the present invention.
The systems and methods to generate modified or refined user inputs based on the original user input, such as a query, based on the user's query history and relationships between the terms of the user query. The systems and methods may include systems and methods for extracting new terms including new name entities (e.g., proper names, names of movies, songs and products, etc.) and the relationships between terms. The systems and methods described herein are suitable for use in generating query (or other user input) refinement but may also be adapted for many other applications such as news article classification, spelling correction, media search and segmentation. For many user, the initial search query is often not the best search query and the user thus modifies or refines the search query, sometimes multiple times, during a given search session.
Each user input or query entry in the modification/refinement cache may contain a list of predetermined number N of suggested queries. Thus, to generate suggestions M+1, M+2 . . . N, i.e., to fill up the suggested queries list for each query, blocks 44-47 may also be performed. In particular, at blocks 44 and 45, an extended query lattice may be (conceptually) built to generate additional suggested modified/refined (alternative) queries. Block 44 generally represents a term replacement query modification/refinement method while block 45 generally represents an expansion/contraction query modification/refinement method. Specifically, at block 44, the extended query lattice may be built by replacing terms in the original query with similar terms using a similarity matrix of similar terms. Term replacement replaces a word or term (including phrasal term) in the original query with a similar word or term. Similar terms may include synonyms or near synonyms (e.g., community and neighborhood), acronyms, and/or terms in the same syntactic/semantic category (e.g., TOYOTA and HONDA, DELL and HP, DVD and digital camera, and NOKIA and MOTOROLA).
At block 45, the extended query lattice may additionally and/or alternatively be built by adding/deleting terms in the original query using an expansion/contraction table of pairs of compounds. In particular, each entry in the expansion/contraction table is a pair of compounds where one compound is a substring of another, e.g., T1T2<=>T1T2T3, and T4T5T6<=>T4T5. Examples of Chinese compound pairs include Shanghai and Shanghai City as well as television and television set. Compound pairs may include ambiguous terms and their unambiguous context (e.g., Amazon and Amazon rain forest and/or Amazon.com), concepts and their refinement (e.g., cell and stem cell and/or cell phone), terms and their attributes (e.g., computer and memory, hard disk drive, and/or DVD drive), and names (e.g., names of people, companies, and the like) and their corresponding activities, job, products, etc. (e.g., actor-movie such as Tom Hanks and Forrest Gump, company-product such as APPLE and IPOD, person-company or title Bill Gates and MICROSOFT or CEO, author-book, singer-song, etc.).
After the extended query lattice is built to contain various alternative paths, the paths and scores for a predetermined number of best queries in the extended query lattice are identified as potential suggested queries at block 46. At block 47, the score of the original common user query is computed so that only the potential suggested queries whose score is at least that of the original common user query are provided as the suggested modified/refined queries. The score may represent the likelihood of the given query (original or potential suggested query) being the query selected or intended by a user. The queries whose score is at least that of the original common user query can be provided as suggested modified/refined queries to fill the suggestion list entry in the modification/refinement cache. The resulting suggested queries may be stored to the pre-computed modified/refined queries cache. Note that the process 40 or the loop includes blocks 42-49 may be repeated periodically to update the modification/refinement cache.
At blocks 55 and 56, an extended query lattice is (conceptually) built to generate suggested modified/refined (alternative) queries. After the extended query lattice is built to contain various alternative paths, the paths and scores for a predetermined number of best queries in the extended query lattice are identified as potential suggested queries at block 57. At block 58, the score of the original user query is computed so that only the potential suggested queries whose scores are at least that of the original user query are provided as the suggested modified/refined queries. The queries whose score is at least that of the original user query can be provided to the user as suggested modified/refined queries to fill the suggestion list or the remainder of the suggestion list. Although not shown, a single best query may alternatively be provided. In addition, the original user query and the resulting suggested queries may be additionally stored to the pre-computed modified/refined queries cache.
The various blocks of the processes 40 and 50 as shown and described above with reference to
After the core entities of the original query are identified, one or more query modification or refinement methods, e.g., term replacement and/or expansion/contraction, can be applied to build the extended query lattice. As noted above, term replacement refers to the replacement of words and/or terms that are similar (e.g., synonym or a near synonym) to the core entities and that may be identified using, for example, the similarity matrix. Merely for illustrative purposes,
As also noted above, expansion/contraction refers to the adding core entities to and/or deleting some of the core entities from in the original query using, for example, the expansion/contraction table of compounds. Merely for illustrative purposes, the expansion/contraction table of compounds may include a table entry for the pair of compounds T1T2 and T1T2T5 such that the compound T1T2 in the original query in
One exemplary method for generating the similarity matrix of similar terms is described in more detail with reference to
One example of the construction of feature vectors and the similarity matrix is presented with reference to
Referring again to
where the probabilities (e.g., relative frequencies) of the features P(f) and words P(w) may be determined using, for example, their respective probabilities in the corpus. Merely as an example,
Referring once again to
where the feature vectors of w1 and w2 are represented by (f11, f12 . . . , f1n) and (f21, f22 . . . , f2n), respectively.
At block 68, the similarity matrix is then constructed from the similarity values for each pair of words for terms and may be used in generating suggested modified/refined queries by replacing query terms with similar terms. In particular, the similarity values may be used in determining the scores for a potential suggest query, for example. Note that the similarity matrix may be recomputed periodically and/or the similarity value for terms, such as those for newly identified terms, may be added to the matrix.
An exemplary method for generating the similarity matrix for use in applying the term replacement query modification/refinement method having been presented, an exemplary method for generating the expansion/contraction table of pairs of compounds for use in applying the expansion/contraction query modification/refinement method will now be described in more detail below with reference to
At block 71, queries in query logs (or another database of user inputs) may be segmented into a word sequence that maximizes the overall probability for the query. In particular, because Chinese words need not be explicitly delineated with spaces or other breaks such that a query may be a string of Chinese characters without breaks, a segmentor may be employed to segment a sequence of characters into a sequence of words. The sequence of words can be such that the product of the probabilities of the words is the maximum among all possible segmentations of the sequence of characters. As is evident, block 71 need not be performed for certain languages such as English where there are clear delineations between adjacent words.
To identify compounds/phrases, frequent word sequences or n-grams (sequences of n terms) are identified at block 72. Also at block 72, a count of the word sequences where all adjacent pairs of words in the word sequence are frequent n-grams is made so as to identify frequent word sequences of any length. Note that frequent word sequences may or may not be compounds. For example, some of the frequent word sequences may be compounds while others may be non-phrasal or non-compound sequences.
At block 73, non-phrasal sequences are identified by requiring a compound/phrase to appear at the beginning as well as the end of a minimum number of queries (but not necessarily in the same query). The minimum number of queries may be any number greater than or equal to 1 but is typically much greater than 1, e.g., 50 or 100.
At block 74, a feature vector for each n-gram in a corpus, such as a web corpus, along with a count for each feature f in the feature vector is constructed. At block 75, the value of the each feature f in the feature vector may be determined as the point-wise mutual information MI between the n-gram and feature f. At block 76, a similarity measure or value sim between two n-grams may be determined as the cosine of the angle between their feature vectors using the values of the features in the feature vectors. Note that blocks 74, 75, and 76 are similar to blocks 62, 64, and 66 of process 60, respectively, as described above with reference to
The expansion/contraction table may then be constructed as pairs of compounds where one compound is a substring of another at block 77. In addition, the counts of the compounds can also be determined and stored in the expansion/contraction table.
The determination of query suggestions can be treated as a prediction problem based on previous queries in the current query session. Given the history of queries Q1, Q2, . . . , Qn-1 in the current search session, a prediction may be made as to what the next query Qn the user is most likely to select. The suggested or predicted next query Qn should not only be relevant to the history of queries Q1, Q2, . . . , Qn-1 in the current session but also yield good search results. A measurement of how good the search results are may be a function of, for example, click position (the position of the search result that the user selects) and click duration (how long the user stays at the selected search result page).
In one embodiment, the score for each potential suggested query can be determined as the value of the object function F:
F(Q,Q1, . . . ,Qn-1)=Rel(Q,Q1, . . . ,Qn-1)*Click(Q)*Position(Q);
where:
Rel(Q, Q1, . . . , Qn-1) is the relevance between the history of queries Q1, . . . , Qn-1 and the candidate suggested query Q;
Click(Q) is the probability that the candidate suggested query Q will be selected by the user; and
Position(Q) is the position of the search result for the candidate suggested query Q that will be clicked.
As described above with reference to
Qn=ArgMax—Q{F(Q,Q1, . . . ,Qn-1)}
The determination of the scores for each potential suggested or predicted next query Q 90 is shown in the flowchart of
Rel(Q,Q′)=Max—f Prod—{i=1}^k Cor(Ti,Ti′)*w(Ti)
where:
alignment function f=f(T1, T2, . . . , Tk, T1′, T2′, . . . , Tk′) maps the terms of the related queries Q and Q′, e.g., a mapping between {T1, . . . , Tk, e} and {T1′, . . . , Tk′, e}, an example of which is shown in
Cor(Ti, Ti′) is the correlation between terms Ti, Ti′ and is a vector of real numbers;
Q=T1, T2, . . . , Tk (core entities in query Q in which any term Ti may be an empty term e);
Q′=T1′, T2′, . . . , Tk (core entities in query Q′ in which any term Ti′ may be an empty term e); and
w(Ti) is the importance of term Ti, e.g., TF/IDF for Ti, where TF represents a term frequency (e.g., count of the term) and IDF represents an inverted document frequency.
Next, at block 84, the probability that query Q will be selected by the user, Click(Q), is determined from, for example, click duration or normalized click duration. At block 86, the score of the position for the predicted query Q, Position(Q), is determined from, for example, the click position, normalized click position, or inverted click position. Lastly, at block 88, the value of the object function F for the potential suggested or predicted next query Q is determined from the results of blocks 82, 84, and 86 as described above.
The determination of correlation values Cor(Ti, Ti′) used in determining the relevance between two queries is described in more detail with reference to
At block 94, the correlation values between pairs of core entities T, T′ can be determined using, for example, query logs, web pages and anchor text. The correlation between two core entities T1 and T2 may be defined as a function of a vector of real numbers:
Cor(T1,T2)=f(w1,w2, . . . ,wn)
where w1, w2, . . . , wn are the weights of certain predetermined relationships. Examples of the predetermined relationships include (1) synonyms, acronyms and antonyms, (2) compounded phrase such as Shanghai vs. Shanghai City, television vs. television machine, (3) terms in the same syntactic/semantic category, e.g., TOYOTA and HONDA, (4) ambiguous terms and their unambiguous context, (5) names of people and their corresponding activities, e.g., Oprah and talk show host, (6) attributes of terms, e.g., computer and memory, (7) refinement of concepts, e.g., Amazon and Amazon River, Amazon Rain Forrest, and Amazon.com, (8) movie-actors, book-authors, company-product, person-position, etc., e.g., Tom Hanks and Forrest Gump and Bill Gates and CEO.
At block 96, the value of the correlation vectors Cor(T1, T2) may be normalized to [0-1].
The systems and methods for generating modified or refined user inputs can suggest queries that a user is likely to use and/or that generate a top result that the user is likely to select. The systems and methods quantitatively measure the correlation between two queries. As is evident, the two queries need not have any common terms or even synonyms. For example, the queries related to an original query (e.g., in Chinese) ‘Now and Forever’ mp3″ for the mp3 file of the song “Now and Forever,” may include “CoCo Lee” (singer of the song), as well as other songs or albums by the same artist, for example. Thus the suggested queries may not be simply an expansion of the original query but rather queries with better search results, e.g., search results that the users are more likely to select. In one example, the suggested queries may include queries that achieve query sense disambiguation where the original query is short and ambiguous. As another example, the suggested queries may include queries that split the original query into shorter queries where the original query may be long and/or contain mutually exclusive terms.
While the exemplary embodiments of the present invention are described and illustrated herein, it will be appreciated that they are merely illustrative and that modifications can be made to these embodiments without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. Thus, the scope of the invention is intended to be defined only in terms of the following claims as may be amended, with each claim being expressly incorporated into this Description of Specific Embodiments as an embodiment of the invention.
This application is a continuation application of, and claims priority to, pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/122,873, filed on May 4, 2005, entitled “Suggesting and Refining User Input Based on Original User Input.” The disclosure of the foregoing application is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5265065 | Turtle | Nov 1993 | A |
5331554 | Graham | Jul 1994 | A |
5418948 | Turtle | May 1995 | A |
6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006225 | Bowman et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6131082 | Hargrave, III et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6169986 | Bowman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182066 | Marques | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6314419 | Faisal | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6345244 | Clark | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6411950 | Moricz et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6510406 | Marchisio | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6571234 | Knight et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6611825 | Billheimer et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6633868 | Min et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6757646 | Marchisio | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6847966 | Sommer et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6882970 | Garner et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6947930 | Anick et al. | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6961719 | Rai | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7054812 | Charlesworth et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7089236 | Stibel | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7593921 | Goronzy et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7636714 | Lamping et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
8019748 | Wu et al. | Sep 2011 | B1 |
20020052740 | Charlesworth et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020052894 | Bourdoncle et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020103798 | Abrol et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020156763 | Marchisio | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030028512 | Stensmo | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030101177 | Matsubayaski et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030149704 | Yayoi et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030208473 | Lennon | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217047 | Marchisio | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030217052 | Rubenczyk et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030231209 | Kappe et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040086185 | Sun | May 2004 | A1 |
20040158560 | Wen et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040186827 | Anick et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050021517 | Marchisio | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050076003 | DuBose et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080782 | Ratnaparkhi et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050149496 | Mukherjee et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050210010 | Larson et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050234879 | Zeng et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050234972 | Zeng et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050289463 | Wu et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060106769 | Gibbs | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112091 | Chapman et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060200556 | Brave et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060253427 | Wu et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20080040314 | Brave et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080183685 | He et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195601 | Ntoulas et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1460948 | Dec 2003 | CN |
1 587 011 | Oct 2005 | EP |
2005-084943 | Mar 2005 | JP |
WO 0079436 | Dec 2004 | WO |
WO 2005013153 | Feb 2005 | WO |
WO2005026989 | Mar 2005 | WO |
WO 2005026989 | Mar 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Notice of Preliminary Rejection from related Korean Patent Application No. 2007-7028339, dated Oct. 4, 2012, 13 pages. |
B. Giff-Schmitt, International Preliminary Report on Patentability in PCT/US2006/016787, mailed Nov. 6, 2007, 6 pages. |
C. Dumitrescu, International Search Report in PCT/US2006/016787, mailed Aug. 24, 2006, 5 pages. |
Notification of the First Office Action for Chinese Application Serial No. 200680021940.2, dated Nov. 13, 2009, 14 pages. (English translation included). |
Notification of the Second Office Action for Chinese Application Serial No. 200680021940.2, dated Jul. 5, 2010, 9 pages. (English translation included). |
Dupret et al., “Recommending Better Queries Based on Click-Through Data,” In: Apostolico, A., Melucci, M. (eds.) SPIRE 2004, LNCS, vol. 3246, pp. 1-12., Springer, Heidelberg (2004). |
Huang et al., “Relevant Term Suggestion in Interactive Web Search Based on Contextual Information in Query Session Logs,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2003, 54(7):638-649. |
Kim et al, “A Comparison of Collocation-based Similarity Measures in Query Expansion,” Information Processing and Management, Jan. 1999, 35:19-30. |
Kou et al, “Similarity Model and Term Association for Document Categorization,” IEEE Proceedings of the 13th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications, 2002, 5 pages. |
Microsoft Computer Dictionary, Fifth Edition, Copyright 2002, 1 page. |
Qiu et al., “Concept Based Query Expansion”, SIGIR Forum, ACM, New York, NY, US, Jun. 27, 1993, pp. 160-169. |
Wen et al., “Query Clustering Using User Logs,” 2002, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Jan. 2002, 20(1):59-81. |
Wenxiang et al., “Knowledge Discovery of Usage for Chinese Words Based on DSMA”, Computer Applications and Software, 22(1):90-92, Jan. 2005 (English Abstract). |
Yeung et al, Improving Performance of Similarity-Based Clustering by Feature Weight Learning, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, Apr. 2002, 24(4):556-561. |
First Office Action for Japanese Patent Application Serial No. 2008-510125, dated Nov. 15, 2011, 5 pages. |
Office Action from related Chinese Patent Application No. 200680021940.2, dated Feb. 29, 2012, 7 pages. |
English translation of office action issued for Chinese patent application serial No. 201210199408.7, State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO), dated Feb. 4, 2015, 9 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130103696 A1 | Apr 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11122873 | May 2005 | US |
Child | 13615518 | US |