This application relates in general to using documents as a reference point and, in particular, to a system and method for displaying relationships between electronically stored information to provide classification suggestions via nearest neighbor.
Historically, document review during the discovery phase of litigation and for other types of legal matters, such as due diligence and regulatory compliance, have been conducted manually. During document review, individual reviewers, generally licensed attorneys, are assigned sets of documents for coding. A reviewer must carefully study each document and categorize the document by assigning a code or other marker from a set of descriptive classifications, such as “privileged,” “responsive,” and “non-responsive.” The classifications can affect the disposition of each document, including admissibility into evidence.
During discovery, document review can potentially affect the outcome of the underlying legal matter, so consistent and accurate results are crucial. Manual document review is tedious and time-consuming. Marking documents is solely at the discretion of each reviewer and inconsistent results may occur due to misunderstanding, time pressures, fatigue, or other factors. A large volume of documents reviewed, often with only limited time, can create a loss of mental focus and a loss of purpose for the resultant classification. Each new reviewer also faces a steep learning curve to become familiar with the legal matter, classification categories, and review techniques.
Currently, with the increasingly widespread movement to electronically stored information (ESI), manual document review is no longer practicable. The often exponential growth of ESI exceeds the bounds reasonable for conventional manual human document review and underscores the need for computer-assisted ESI review tools.
Conventional ESI review tools have proven inadequate to providing efficient, accurate, and consistent results. For example, DiscoverReady LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, custom programs ESI review tools, which conduct semi-automated document review through multiple passes over a document set in ESI form. During the first pass, documents are grouped by category and basic codes are assigned. Subsequent passes refine and further assign codings. Multiple pass review requires a priori project-specific knowledge engineering, which is only useful for the single project, thereby losing the benefit of any inferred knowledge or know-how for use in other review projects.
Thus, there remains a need for a system and method for increasing the efficiency of document review that bootstraps knowledge gained from other reviews while ultimately ensuring independent reviewer discretion.
Document review efficiency can be increased by identifying relationships between reference ESI and uncoded ESI, and providing a suggestion for classification based on the relationships. The uncoded ESI for a document review project are identified and clustered. At least one of the uncoded ESI is selected from the clusters and compared with the reference ESI based on a similarity metric. The reference ESI most similar to the selected uncoded ESI are identified. Classification codes assigned to the similar reference ESI can be used to provide suggestions for classification of the selected uncoded ESI. Further, a machine-generated suggestion for classification code can be provided with a confidence level.
An embodiment provides a system and method for displaying relationships between electronically stored information to provide classification suggestions via nearest neighbor. Reference electronically stored information items and a set of uncoded electronically stored information items are designated. Each of the reference information items are previously classified. At least one uncoded electronically stored information item is compared with the reference electronically stored information items. One or more of the reference electronically stored information items similar to the at least one uncoded electronically stored information items are identified. Relationships are depicted between the at least one uncoded electronically stored information item and the similar reference electronically stored information items for classifying the at least one uncoded electronically stored information item.
A further embodiment provides a system and method for identifying reference documents for use in classifying uncodcd documents. A set of reference documents is designated. Each reference document is associated with a classification code. A set of clusters each including uncoded documents is designated. At least one uncoded document is selected and compared with each of the reference documents. One or more reference documents that satisfy a threshold of similarity with the at least one uncoded document is identified. Relationships between the at least one uncoded document and the similar reference documents are displayed based on the associated classification codes as suggestions for classifying the at least one uncoded document.
Still other embodiments of the present invention will become readily apparent to those skilled in the art from the following detailed description, wherein are described embodiments 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 ever-increasing volume of ESI underlies the need for automating document review for improved consistency and throughput. Previously coded documents offer knowledge gleaned from earlier work in similar legal projects, as well as a reference point for classifying uncoded ESI.
Providing Suggestions Using Reference Documents
Reference documents are documents that have been previously classified by content and can be used to influence classification of uncoded, that is unclassified, ESI. Specifically, relationships between the uncoded ESI and the reference ESI can be visually depicted to provide suggestions, for instance to a human reviewer, for classifying the visually-proximal uncoded ESI.
Complete ESI review requires a support environment within which classification can be performed.
The backend server 11 is coupled to an intranetwork 21 and executes a workbench suite 31 for providing a user interface framework for automated document management, processing, analysis, and classification. In a further embodiment, the backend server 11 can be accessed via an internetwork 22. The workbench software suite 31 includes a document mapper 32 that includes a clustering engine 33, similarity searcher 34, classifier 35, and display generator 36. Other workbench suite modules are possible.
The clustering engine 33 performs efficient document scoring and clustering of documents, including uncoded and coded documents, such as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,313, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Clusters of uncoded documents 14a can be formed and organized along vectors, known as spines, based on a similarity of the clusters, which can be expressed in terms of distance. During clustering, groupings of related documents are provided. The content of each document can be converted into a set of tokens, which are word-level or character-level n-grams, raw terms, concepts, or entities. Other tokens are possible. An n-gram is a predetermined number of items selected from a source. The items can include syllables, letters, or words, as well as other items. A raw term is a term that has not been processed or manipulated. Concepts typically include nouns and noun phrases obtained through part-of-speech tagging that have a common semantic meaning. Entities further refine nouns and noun phrases into people, places, and things, such as meetings, animals, relationships, and various other objects. Entities can be extracted using entity extraction techniques known in the field. Clustering of the documents can be based on cluster criteria, such as the similarity of tokens, including n-grams, raw terms, concepts, entities, email addresses, or other metadata.
In a further embodiment, the clusters can include uncoded and coded documents, which are generated based on a similarity with the uncoded documents, as discussed in commonly-owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/833,860, entitled “System and Method for Displaying Relationships Between Electronically Stored Information to Provide Classification Suggestions via Inclusion,” filed Jul. 9, 2010, pending, and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/833,872, entitled “System and Method for Displaying Relationships Between Electronically Stored Information to Provide Classification Suggestions via Injection,” filed Jul. 9, 2010, pending, the disclosures of which are incorporated by reference.
The similarity searcher 34 identifies the reference documents 14b that are most similar to selected uncoded documents 14a, clusters, or spines, as further described below with reference to
The classifier 35 provides a machine-generated suggestion and confidence level for classification of selected uncoded documents 14a, clusters, or spines, as further described below with reference to
The document mapper 32 operates on uncoded 14a and coded documents 14b, which can be retrieved from the storage 13, as well as from a plurality of local and remote sources. The local sources include a local server 15, which is coupled to a storage device 16 with documents 17 and a local client 18, which is coupled to a storage device 19 with documents 20. The local server 15 and local client 18 are interconnected to the backend server 11 and the work client 12 over an intranetwork 21. In addition, the document mapper 32 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 a remote server 24, which is coupled to a storage device 25 with documents 26 and a remote client 27, which is coupled to a storage device 28 with documents 29. Other document sources, either local or remote, are possible.
The individual documents 17, 20, 26, 29 include all forms and types of structured and unstructured ESI, including electronic message stores, word processing documents, electronic mail (email) folders, Web pages, and graphical or multimedia data. Notwithstanding, the documents could be in the form of structurally organized data, such as stored in a spreadsheet or database.
In one embodiment, the individual documents 14a, 14b, 17, 20, 26, 29 include electronic message folders storing email and attachments, such as maintained by the Outlook and Outlook Express products, licensed by Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash. The database can be an SQL-based relational database, such as the Oracle database management system, Release 8, licensed by Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores, Calif.
The individual documents 17, 20, 26, 29 can be designated and stored as uncoded documents or reference documents. The uncoded documents, which are unclassified, are selected for a document review project and stored as a document corpus for classification. The reference documents are initially uncoded documents that can be selected from the corpus or other source of uncoded documents, and subsequently classified. The reference documents can assist in providing suggestions for classification of the remaining uncoded documents based on visual relationships between the uncoded documents and reference documents. In a further embodiment, the reference documents can provide classification suggestions for a document corpus associated with a related document review project. In yet a further embodiment, the reference documents can be used as a training set to form machine-generated suggestions for classifying uncoded documents, as further described below with reference to
The document corpus for a document review project can be divided into subsets of uncoded documents, which are each provided to a particular reviewer as an assignment. To maintain consistency, the same classification codes can be used across all assignments in the document review project. Alternatively, the classification codes can be different for each assignment. The classification codes can be determined using taxonomy generation, during which a list of classification codes can be provided by a reviewer or determined automatically. For purposes of legal discovery, the list of classification codes can include “privileged,” “responsive,” or “non-responsive;” however, other classification codes are possible. A “privileged” document contains information that is protected by a privilege, meaning that the document should not be disclosed or “produced” to an opposing party. Disclosing a “privileged” document can result in an unintentional waiver of the subject matter disclosed. A “responsive” document contains information that is related to a legal matter on which the document review project is based and a “non-responsive” document includes information that is not related to the legal matter.
The system 10 includes individual computer systems, such as the backend server 11, work server 12, server 15, client 18, remote server 24 and remote client 27. The individual computer systems 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. The various implementations of the source code and object and byte codes can be held on a computer-readable storage medium, such as a floppy disk, hard drive, digital video disk (DVD), random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM) and similar storage mediums. For example, 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.
Identifying relationships between the reference documents and uncoded documents includes clustering and similarity measures.
An uncoded document is selected from one of the clusters in the set and compared against the reference documents (block 43) to identify one or more reference documents that are similar to the selected uncoded document (block 44). The similar reference documents are identified based on a similarity measure calculated between the selected uncoded document and each reference document. Comparing the selected uncoded document with the reference documents is further discussed below with reference to
In a further embodiment, similar reference documents can also be identified for a selected cluster or a selected spine along which the clusters are placed.
Selecting a Document Reference Subset
After the clusters have been generated, one or more uncoded documents can be selected from at least one of the clusters for comparing with a reference document set or subset.
The subset of reference documents, whether predetermined or newly generated, should be selected from a set of reference documents that are representative of the document corpus for a review project in which data organization or classification is desired. Guided review assists a reviewer or other user in identifying reference documents that are representative of the corpus for use in classifying uncoded documents. During guided review, the uncoded documents that are dissimilar to all other uncoded documents are identified based on a similarity threshold. In one embodiment, the dissimilarity can be determined as the cos σ of the score vectors for the uncoded documents. Other methods for determining dissimilarity are possible. Identifying the dissimilar documents provides a group of documents that are representative of the corpus for a document review project. Each identified dissimilar document is then classified by assigning a particular classification code based on the content of the document to collectively generate the reference documents. Guided review can be performed by a reviewer, a machine, or a combination of the reviewer and machine.
Other methods for generating reference documents for a document review project using guided review are possible, including clustering. A set of uncoded documents to be classified is clustered, as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,313, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. A plurality of the clustered uncoded documents are selected based on selection criteria, such as cluster centers or sample clusters. The cluster centers can be used to identify uncoded documents in a cluster that are most similar or dissimilar to the cluster center. The selected uncoded documents are then assigned classification codes. In a further embodiment, sample clusters can be used to generate reference documents by selecting one or more sample clusters based on cluster relation criteria, such as size, content, similarity, or dissimilarity. The uncoded documents in the selected sample clusters are then selected for classification by assigning classification codes. The classified documents represent reference documents for the document review project. The number of reference documents can be determined automatically or by a reviewer. Other methods for selecting documents for use as reference documents are possible.
Comparing a Selected Uncoded Document to Reference Documents
An uncoded document selected from one of the clusters can be compared to the reference documents to identify similar reference documents for use in providing suggestions regarding classification of the selected uncoded document.
where cos σAB comprises a similarity between uncoded document A and reference document B, {right arrow over (S)}A comprises a score vector for uncoded document A, and {right arrow over (S)}B comprises a score vector for reference document B. Other forms of determining similarity using a distance metric are possible, as would be recognized by one skilled in the art, including using Euclidean distance.
One or more of the reference documents that are most similar to the selected uncoded document, based on the similarity metric, are identified. The most similar reference documents can be identified by satisfying a predetermined threshold of similarity. Other methods for determining the similar reference documents are possible, such as setting a predetermined absolute number of the most similar reference documents. The classification codes of the identified similar reference documents can be used as suggestions for classifying the selected uncoded document, as further described below with reference to
Displaying the Reference Documents
The similar reference documents can be displayed with the clusters of uncoded documents. In the display, the similar reference documents can be provided as a list, while the clusters can be can be organized along spines of thematically related clusters, as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,271,804, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. The spines can be positioned in relation to other cluster spines based on a theme shared by those cluster spines, as described in commonly-assigned U.S. Pat. No. 7,610,313, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference. Other displays of the clusters and similar reference documents are possible.
Organizing the clusters into spines and groups of cluster spines provides an individual reviewer with a display that presents the documents according to a theme while maximizing the number of relationships depicted between the documents.
Similar reference documents 74 identified for a selected uncoded document 73 can be displayed in a list 75 by document title or other identifier. Also, classification codes 76 associated with the similar reference documents 74 can be displayed as circles having a diamond shape within the boundary of the circle. The classification codes 76 can include “privileged,” “responsive,” and “non-responsive” codes, as well as other codes. The different classification codes 76 can each be represented by a color, such as blue for “privileged” reference documents and yellow for “non-responsive” reference documents. Other display representations of the uncoded documents, similar reference documents, and classification codes are possible, including by symbols and shapes.
The classification codes 76 of the similar reference documents 74 can provide suggestions for classifying the selected uncoded document based on factors, such as a number of different classification codes for the similar reference documents and a number of similar reference documents associated with each classification code. For example, the list of reference documents includes four similar reference documents identified for a particular uncoded document. Three of the reference documents are classified as “privileged,” while one is classified as “non-responsive.” In making a decision to assign a classification code to a selected uncoded document, the reviewer can consider classification factors based on the similar reference documents, such as such as a presence or absence of similar reference documents with different classification codes and a quantity of the similar reference documents for each classification code. Other classification factors are possible. In the current example, the display 81 provides suggestions, including the number of “privileged” similar reference documents, the number of “non-responsive” similar reference documents, and the absence of other classification codes of similar reference documents. Based on the number of “privileged” similar reference documents compared to the number of “non-responsive” similar reference documents, the reviewer may be more inclined to classify the selected uncoded documents as “privileged.” Alternatively, the reviewer may wish to further review the selected uncoded document based on the multiple classification codes of the similar reference documents. Other classification codes and combinations of classification codes are possible. The reviewer can utilize the suggestions provided by the similar reference documents to assign a classification to the selected uncoded document. In a further embodiment, the now classified and previously uncoded document can be added to the set of reference documents for use in classifying other uncoded documents.
In a further embodiment, similar reference documents can be identified for a cluster or spine to provide suggestions for classifying the cluster and spine. For a cluster, the similar reference documents are identified based on a comparison of a score vector for the cluster, which is representative of the cluster center and the reference document score vectors. Meanwhile, identifying similar reference documents for a spine is based on a comparison between the score vector for the spine, which is based on the cluster center of all the clusters along that spine, and the reference document score vectors. Once identified, the similar reference documents are used for classifying the cluster or spine.
In an even further embodiment, the uncoded documents, including the selected uncoded document, and the similar reference documents can be displayed as a document list.
At least one of the uncoded documents can be selected and displayed in a document viewing box 84. The selected uncoded document can be identified in the list 81 using a selection indicator (not shown), including a symbol, font, or highlighting. Other selection indicators and uncoded document factors are possible. Once identified, the selected uncoded document can be compared to a set of reference documents to identify the reference documents 85 most similar. The identified similar reference documents 85 can be displayed below the document viewing box 84 with an associated classification code 83. The classification code of the similar reference document 85 can be used as a suggestion for classifying the selected uncoded document. After assigning a classification code, a representation 83 of the classification can be provided in the display with the selected uncoded document. In a further embodiment, the now classified and previously uncoded document can be added to the set of reference documents.
Machine Classification of Uncoded Documents
Similar reference documents can be used as suggestions to indicate a need for manual review of the uncoded documents, when review may be unnecessary, and hints for classifying the uncoded documents, clusters, or spines. Additional information can be generated to assist a reviewer in making classification decisions for the uncoded documents, such as a machine-generated confidence level associated with a suggested classification code, as described in common-assigned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/833,769, entitled “System and Method for Providing a Classification Suggestion for Electronically Stored Information,” filed on Jul. 9, 2010, pending, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference.
The machine-generated suggestion for classification and associated confidence level can be determined by a classifier.
The neighborhood of x-similar reference documents is determined separately for each selected uncoded document and can include one or more similar reference documents. During neighborhood generation, a value for x similar reference documents is first determined automatically or by an individual reviewer. The neighborhood of similar reference documents can include the reference documents, which were identified as similar reference documents according to the method of
The machine-generated analysis of the selected uncoded document and x-number of similar reference documents can be based on one or more routines performed by the classifier, such as a nearest neighbor (NN) classifier. The routines for determining a suggested classification code include a minimum distance classification measure, also known as closest neighbor, minimum average distance classification measure, maximum count classification measure, and distance weighted maximum count classification measure. The minimum distance classification measure for a selected uncoded document includes identifying a neighbor that is the closest distance to the selected uncoded document and assigning the classification code of the closest neighbor as the suggested classification code for the selected uncoded document. The closest neighbor is determined by comparing the score vectors for the selected uncoded document with each of the x-number of similar reference documents in the neighborhood as the cos σ to determine a distance metric. The distance metrics for the x-number of similar reference documents are compared to identify the similar reference document closest to the selected uncoded document as the closest neighbor.
The minimum average distance classification measure includes calculating an average distance of the similar reference documents for each classification code. The classification code of the similar reference documents having the closest average distance to the selected uncoded document is assigned as the suggested classification code. The maximum count classification measure, also known as the voting classification measure, includes counting a number of similar reference documents for each classification code and assigning a count or “vote” to the similar reference documents based on the assigned classification code. The classification code with the highest number of similar reference documents or “votes” is assigned to the selected uncoded document as the suggested classification code. The distance weighted maximum count classification measure includes identifying a count of all similar reference documents for each classification code and determining a distance between the selected uncoded document and each of the similar reference documents. Each count assigned to the similar reference documents is weighted based on the distance of the similar reference document from the selected uncoded document. The classification code with the highest count, after consideration of the weight, is assigned to the selected uncoded document as the suggested classification code.
The machine-generated suggested classification code is provided for the selected uncoded document with a confidence level, which can be presented as an absolute value or a percentage. Other confidence level measures are possible. The reviewer can use the suggested classification code and confidence level to assign a classification to the selected uncoded document. Alternatively, the x-NN classifier can automatically assign the suggested classification code. In one embodiment, the x-NN classifier only assigns an uncoded document with the suggested classification code if the confidence level is above a threshold value, which can be set by the reviewer or the x-NN classifier.
Machine classification can also occur on a cluster or spine level once one or more documents in the cluster have been classified. For instance, for cluster classification, a cluster is selected and a score vector for the center of the cluster is determined as described above with reference to
Providing classification suggestions and suggested classification codes has been described in relation to uncoded documents and reference documents. However, in a further embodiment, classification suggestions and suggested classification codes can be provided for the uncoded documents based on a particular token identified within the uncoded documents. The token can include concepts, n-grams, raw terms, and entities. In one example, the uncoded tokens, which are extracted from uncoded documents, can be clustered. A token can be selected from one of the clusters and compared with reference tokens. Relationships between the uncoded token and similar reference tokens can be displayed to provide classification suggestions for the uncoded token. The uncoded documents can then be classified based on the classified tokens.
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.
This non-provisional patent application claims priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(e) to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/229,216, filed Jul. 28, 2009, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/236,490, filed Aug. 24, 2009, 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 |
6363374 | Corston-Oliver 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 |
6640009 | Zlotnick | Oct 2003 | B2 |
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 |
6847966 | Sommer et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6862710 | Marchisio | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6879332 | Decombe | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6883001 | Abe | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6886010 | Kostoff | 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 |
6993535 | Bolle et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6996575 | Cox et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003551 | Malik | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7013435 | Gallo et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7020645 | Bisbee et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7039856 | Peairs et al. | May 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 |
7107266 | Breyman et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7117151 | Iwahashi et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7117246 | Christenson et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7130807 | Mikurak | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7137075 | HoshiTo et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7139739 | Agrafiotis et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7146361 | Broder et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155668 | Holland et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7188107 | Moon et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7188117 | Farahat et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7194458 | Micaelian et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7194483 | Mohan et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7197497 | Cossock | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7209949 | Mousseau et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7233886 | Wegerich et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7233940 | Bamberger et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7239986 | Golub et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7240199 | Tomkow | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7246113 | Cheetham et al. | 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 |
7271801 | Toyozawa et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7277919 | Donoho et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7325127 | Olkin et al. | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7353204 | Liu | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7359894 | Liebman et al. | Apr 2008 | B1 |
7363243 | Arnett et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7366759 | Trevithick et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7373612 | Risch et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7376635 | Porcari et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
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 |
7430717 | Spangler | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7433893 | Lowry | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7440662 | Antona et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7444356 | Calistri-Yeh et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7457948 | Bilicksa et al. | Nov 2008 | B1 |
7472110 | Achlioptas | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7490092 | Morton et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7509256 | Iwahashi et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7516419 | Petro et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7523349 | Barras | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7558769 | Scott et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7571177 | Damle | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7574409 | Patinkin | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7584221 | Robertson et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7610313 | Kawai et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7639868 | Regli et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7640219 | Perrizo | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7647345 | Trepess et al. | Jan 2010 | B2 |
7668376 | Lin et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7698167 | Batham et al. | Apr 2010 | B2 |
7716223 | Haveliwala et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7743059 | Chan et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7761447 | Brill et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7801841 | Mishra et al. | Sep 2010 | B2 |
7885901 | Hull et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7971150 | Raskutti et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8010466 | Patinkin | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8010534 | Roitblat et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8165974 | Privault et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
20020032735 | Burnstein et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020065912 | Catchpole et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078044 | Song et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078090 | Hwang et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020122543 | Rowen | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020184193 | Cohen | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030046311 | Baidya et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030130991 | Reijerse et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030172048 | Kauffman | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030174179 | Suermondt et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040024739 | Copperman et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040024755 | Rickard | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040034633 | Rickard | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040205482 | Basu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040205578 | Wolff et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040215608 | Gourlay | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040243556 | Ferrucci et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050025357 | Landwehr et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050097435 | Prakash et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050171772 | Iwahashi et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050203924 | Rosenberg | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050283473 | Rousso et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060008151 | Lin et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060021009 | Lunt | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060053382 | Gardner et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060122974 | Perisic | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060122997 | Lin | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070020642 | Deng et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070043774 | Davis et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070044032 | Mollitor et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070112758 | Livaditis | May 2007 | A1 |
20070150801 | Chidlovskii et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070214133 | Liberty et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070288445 | Kraftsow | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005081 | Green et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080140643 | Ismalon | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080183855 | Agarwal et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080189273 | Kraftsow | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080215427 | Kawada et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080228675 | Duffy et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20090041329 | Nordell et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043797 | Dorie et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090049017 | Gross | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090097733 | Hero et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106239 | Getner et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090222444 | Chowdhury et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090228499 | Schmidtler et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090228811 | Adams et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100100539 | Davis et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100198802 | Kraftsow | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100250477 | Yadav | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100262571 | Schmidtler et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100268661 | Levy et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20120124034 | Jing et al. | May 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1024437 | Aug 2000 | EP |
1049030 | Nov 2000 | EP |
0886227 | Oct 2003 | EP |
WO 0067162 | Nov 2000 | WO |
WO 200067162 | Nov 2000 | WO |
03052627 | Jun 2003 | WO |
03060766 | Jul 2003 | WO |
2006008733 | Jul 2004 | WO |
WO 2005073881 | Aug 2005 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Anna Sachinopoulou, “Multidimensional Visualization,” Technical Research Centre of Finland, ESPOO 2001, Vtt Research Notes 2114, pp. 1-37 (2001). |
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). |
Baeza-Yates et al., “Modern Information Retrieval,” Ch. 2 “Modeling,” Modern Information Retrieval, Harlow: Addison-Wesley, Great Britain 1999, pp. 18-71 (1999). |
Bernard 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 (2003). |
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). |
Boukhelifa et al., “A Model and Software System for Coordinated and Multiple Views in Exploratory Visualization,” Information Visualization, No. 2, pp. 258-269, GB (2003). |
Chung et al., “Thematic Mapping-From Unstructured Documents to Taxonomies,” CIKM'02, Nov. 4-9, 2002, pp. 608-610, ACM, McLean, Virginia, USA (Nov. 4, 2002). |
Chen an et al., “Fuzzy Concept Graph and Application in Web Document Clustering,” IEEE, pp. 101-106 (2001). |
Davison et al., “Brute Force Estimation of the No. Of Human Genes Using EST Clustering as a Measure,” IBM Journal of Research & Development, vol. 45, pp. 439-447 (May 2001). |
Eades et al. “Multilevel Visualization of Clustered Graphs,” Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of 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). |
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. 1, 1999, Jun. 3, 1999, pp. 49-60, Philadelphia, PA, USA (Jun. 1999). |
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). |
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). |
http://em-ntserver.unl.edu/Math/mathweb/vecors/vectors.html © 1997. |
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 (Sep. 1999). |
Osborn et al., “Justice: A Jidicial Search Tool Using Intelligent Cencept Extraction,” Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, University of Melbourne, Austrailia, ICAIL-99, p. 173-181, ACM (1999). |
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). |
Kanungo et al., “The Analysis of a Simple K-Means Clustering Algorithm,” pp. 100-109, PROC 16th annual symposium of computational geometry (May 2000). |
O'Neill et al., “DISCO: Intelligent Help for Document Review,” 12th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Barcelona, Spain, Jun. 8, 2009, pp. 1-10, ICAIL 2009, Association for Computing Machinery, Red Hook, New York (Online); XP 002607216. |
McNee, “Meeting User Information Needs in Recommender Systems,” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Jun. 2006. |
Slaney et al., “Multimedia Edges: Finding Hierarchy in all Dimensions” PROC. 9-th ACM Intl. Conf. on Multimedia, pp. 29-40, ISBN. 1-58113-394-4, Sep. 30, 2001, XP002295016 Ottawa (Sep. 30, 2001). |
Strehl 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). |
Dan Sullivan, “Document Warehousing and Text Mining: Techniques for Improving Business Operations, Marketing and Sales,” Ch. 1-3, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY (2001). |
V. Faber, “Clustering and the Continuous K-Means Algorithm,” Los Alamos Science, The Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, US, No. 22, Jan. 1, 1994, pp. 138-144 (Jan. 1, 1994). |
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 (2002). |
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). |
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). |
Hiroyuki Kawano, “Overview of Mondou Web Search Engine Using Text Mining and Information Visualizing Technologies,” IEEE, 2001, pp. 234-241 (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). |
Kohonen, “Self-Organizing Maps,” Ch. 1-2, Springer-Verlag (3rd ed.) (2001). |
M. Kurimo, “Fast Latent Semantic Indexing of Spoken Documents by Using Self-Organizing Maps” IEEE International Conference on Accoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 6, pp. 2425-2428 (Jun. 2000). |
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). |
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). |
Artero et al., “Viz3D: Effective Exploratory Visualization of Large Multidimensional Data Sets,” IEEE Computer Graphics and Image Processing, pp. 340-347 (Oct. 20, 2004). |
Magarshak, Theory & Practice. Issue 01. May 17, 2000. http://www.flipcode.com/articles/tp.sub.--issue01-pf.shtml (May 17, 2000). |
Maria Cristin Ferreira De Oliveira et al., “From Visual Data Exploration to Visual Data Mining: A Survey,” Jul.-Sep. 2003, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 378-394 (Jul. 2003). |
Miller et al., “Topic Islands: A Wavelet Based Text Visualization System,” Proceedings of the IEEE Visualization Conference, pp. 189-196 (1998). |
North et al. “A Taxonomy of Multiple Window Coordinations,” Institute for Systems Research & Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, Maryland, USA, http://www.cs.umd.edu/localphp/hcil/tech-reports-search.php?number=97-18 (1997). |
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). |
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. |
Rauber et al., “Text Mining in the SOMLib Digital Library System: The Representation of Topics and Genres,” Applied Intelligence 18, pp. 271-293, 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers (2003). |
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). |
S.S. Weng, C.K. Liu, “Using text classification and multiple concepts to answer e-mails.” Expert Systems with Applications, 26 (2004), pp. 529-543. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20110029527 A1 | Feb 2011 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61229216 | Jul 2009 | US | |
61236490 | Aug 2009 | US |