1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to electronic mail (email) and relates more particularly to a system and method for increasing email productivity.
2. Description of the Background Art
Electronic mail (email) has become an important tool for both business and personal communication, and its use will likely become even more critical in the future. Many professionals spend a good part of their workday reading and drafting email messages for various purposes. High-volume email users, for example professionals with publicly-available email addresses, may receive hundreds of email messages a day, and can spend several hours each day dealing with them. The sheer volume of received email messages challenges the productivity of any professional.
Email users often receive junkman, also known as unsolicited commercial email or spam. Most users are not interested in such messages and routinely delete them unread. However, some junkman messages are not easily identified as such from the sender or the subject line, and a user may waste time opening and reading a message only to discover that it is unwanted junkman. Email users also often receive personal messages such as jokes, invitations, and notes from friends. Some users may consider these types of messages as junkman, while others enjoy sending and receiving such messages.
For most business users, the bulk of received email messages are work-related, some of which have a higher priority than others. For example, an email message from a key customer is likely to be of a higher priority than a message from a co-worker. Also, a message from a user's supervisor is likely to be of a higher priority than a message that is a reminder of a regularly scheduled meeting. In addition, messages regarding certain topics may be regarded as having a higher priority than messages regarding a different topic. Each user may have a different determination of which messages have a higher priority, and this determination of priority may change over time.
An email productivity module interacts with an existing email application to perform a variety of functions, such as prioritizing and sorting email messages and filtering junk email messages. The email productivity module performs these functions and others by first analyzing the content of each message using a content analysis engine that implements natural language text classification techniques. Performance of the email productivity module is maintained and/or improves over time by learning from feedback generated by a user's actions taken in connection with email messages. Feedback may be utilized to adapt one or more knowledge bases, which may be stored locally or at another computing device located on a computer network. A knowledge base is a collection of information used by the system to analyze and classify messages. The knowledge base may include any combination of statistical information about messages, domain or language in general, as well as rules, lexicons, thesauri, anthologies and other natural language processing elements known in the art. The knowledge base may additionally include thresholds, likelihood tables, and other information used to classify a message.
The content analysis engine analyzes the content of the message. A prioritization module assigns a priority score and a priority label to the message based on its content. In one embodiment, the priority score is a whole number from 0 to 100, and the priority label is a designation such as high, medium, or low. The user provides feedback to the email productivity module by either accepting the prioritization assigned to the message, changing the priority label (e.g., changing a low priority message to high), or providing feedback by some other means to establish the priority of a selected message. The email productivity module may also infer information about the priority of the message from the actions of the user (implicit feedback).
In connection with the prioritization function, the email productivity module may advantageously provide a mechanism for filtering low-priority (but otherwise legitimate) email messages having content that is relatively unimportant to the recipient and which does not require a response therefrom. These low-priority e-mail messages, which are known colloquially in the art as “occupational spam,” may consist of enterprise-wide announcements, reminders, status reports, and the like, and may constitute a significant portion of the total number of emails received by employees, particularly high-level executives. However, existing junkmail filtering software is not capable of detecting and filtering occupational spam, and so a user may spend a substantial amount of time reading through such messages and taking appropriate action, such as deleting the messages or moving them to a folder for later review. Embodiments of the present invention address this deficiency by generating a priority score for each message, and then executing a predetermined action, such as deleting the message or moving it to a specified folder, if the priority score falls below a predetermined threshold representative of occupational junkmail having little importance and/or urgency to the user.
The sorting function determines a set of suggested folders for storing incoming messages. For each incoming message, the content analysis engine analyzes the content of the message. A message sorting module determines a confidence score for the message based on content for each available folder and lists the top scoring folders in descending order. The user provides feedback to the email productivity module by moving the message into a folder, or by other means of explicit or implicit feedback. In one embodiment, the user may enable the email productivity module to automatically move a message into a folder, for example if the message score for that folder exceeds a threshold.
The junkman identifying function determines whether a message qualifies as junkmail (also known as unsolicited commercial email or spam). The content analysis engine analyzes the content of each incoming message and a junkmail module determines a junkmail score based on the content of the message. The user provides feedback by moving the message to a junkmail folder, which provides positive feedback, or moving the message to a folder not associated with junkmail, which provides negative feedback. The user may also provide explicit feedback to the email productivity module by manually indicating that the message is junkmail or non-junkmail, for example by a keystroke or by clicking on a button. In one embodiment, the user may enable the email productivity module to automatically move a message into the junkmail folder or delete the message if that message's junkman score exceeds a threshold.
The email productivity module may modify the user interface of the email application. The inbox view includes additional fields to show the prioritization score, prioritization level, and junkmail score. In one embodiment, the user interface also includes a toolbar with buttons related to the functions of the email productivity tool. For example, the toolbar includes a junkman button for identifying a message as junkmail, a number of buttons for assigning a priority level to a message, and a drop down list of suggested folders.
The email productivity module may also provide an intelligent search function that allows a user to select one or more messages and search stored messages in every folder to find messages with similar content (“search by example”).
Computing device 120 is provided with storage and a processor for storing and executing an email application 122 having an email productivity add-in 124, and an email productivity module 126. Email application 122 may be, for example, a widely utilized commercial application such as Microsoft Outlook®. Email productivity add-in 124 and email productivity module 126 cooperate to process incoming email messages before the messages are displayed by email application 122. More specifically, email productivity module 126 analyzes the content of incoming email messages and accordingly generates a set of scores and other attributes characterizing the content. Email productivity add-in 124 adds fields containing these scores and attributes to the message so that they may be displayed to the user by email application 122, or so that the presentation of incoming email messages in the user interface may be modified in accordance with the associated scores and attributes. Email productivity add-in 124 may also modify the user interface of email application 122 to allow a user to access functions of email productivity module 126. The contents and functionalities of email productivity module 126 are further discussed in conjunction with
Content analysis engine 212 analyzes the content of the message using language processing techniques to produce content information representative of the content of the email message. The content information may include, without limitation, scoring vectors or matrices indicative of the presence, absence, or incidence of concepts or terms in the message, or of the source and/or recipients of the email message. As used herein, the “content” of the message is intended to include without limitation all lexical and syntactical information in the body of the message, any attachments, and in all message headers such as sender, recipient, reply-to address, carbon copy (cc), subject, date, and time.
Prioritization module 214 is configured to generate priority information for email messages received or stored by computing device 120. More specifically, prioritization module 214 operates in conjunction with content analysis engine 212 to assign a priority score and a priority level to email messages. Content analysis engine 212 and prioritization module 214 apply the content information to prioritization knowledge base 224 to determine a priority score for the message. Prioritization module 214 then assigns a priority level to the email message based on the priority score. In an illustrative implementation, priority scores are whole numbers in a range of 0-100, and available priority levels are low, medium, and high. Scores 0-29 correspond to the low level, scores 30-70 correspond to the medium level, and scores 71-100 correspond to the high level. Other ranges of priority scores and other priority levels are within the scope of the invention. Additionally and/or alternatively, priority scores generated by the prioritization module may take the form of vectors, matrices, sets, or other data structures, wherein the universe of possible priority scores includes at least three different values or states.
Prioritization knowledge base 224 is a collection of information used by email productivity module 126 to make determinations regarding the priority of email messages. Prioritization knowledge base 224 may include any combination of statistical information about messages, domain or language in general, as well as rules, lexicons, thesauri, anthologies, and other natural language processing elements well known in the art. Prioritization knowledge base 224 may also include thresholds, likelihood tables, and any other information used to classify a message. Thresholds may be designated by the user, predetermined by the designers of email productivity module 126, or automatically adjusted by email productivity module 126. In one embodiment, prioritization knowledge base 224 stores prioritization information as models arranged in a branch structure, wherein each branch is a model corresponding to a priority level, e.g. the knowledge base may include a first model for high priority messages, a second model for medium priority messages, and a third model for low-priority messages. Prioritization module 214 applies the content information of a received message to each of the models in prioritization knowledge base 224 to determine the priority score, which reflects the relative priority of the message. Each model in prioritization module 214 may have the same threshold or each model may have a uniquely assigned threshold.
It should be noted that the inclusion in the present invention of the prioritization module and its attendant functionality advantageously enables users to identify legitimate but low-priority email messages (which would not be filtered or otherwise flagged by conventional spam filtering software), and to take appropriate action with respect to the low-priority messages, such as deleting them or storing them in a folder for subsequent review at a convenient time. These legitimate but low-priority email messages, which have been referred to as “occupational spam”, may take the form of enterprise-wide announcements, reminders, status reports, and the like, and may constitute a significant portion of the total number of emails received by employees, particularly high-level executives.
Message sorting module 216 operates in conjunction with content analysis engine 212 to determine a set of suggested folders for a message. The set of suggested folders represent one or more folders in which are stored other emails having similar content, and in which the user would be most likely store the message. Content analysis engine 212 applies the content information of the message to sorting knowledge base 226 to determine the set of suggested folders for the message. Sorting knowledge base 226 is a collection of information used by email productivity module 126 to analyze and classify messages. Sorting knowledge base 226 may include any combination of statistical information about messages, domain or language in general, as well as rules, lexicons, thesauri, anthologies, and other natural language processing elements well known in the art. Sorting knowledge base 226 may also include thresholds, likelihood tables, and any other information used to classify a message. Thresholds may be designated by the user, predetermined by the designers of email productivity module 126, or automatically adjusted by email productivity module 126. In one embodiment, sorting knowledge base 226 is organized in a branched structure and includes on each branch a model corresponding to a folder in email application 122 or other class characterizing the content of email messages. Message sorting module 216 generates a score in connection with each model in sorting knowledge base 226, the score being representative of the likelihood that the email should be classified in the folder to which the model corresponds. Message sorting module 216 then identifies a set of suggested folders. In one embodiment, the set of suggested folders includes the top ten highest scoring folders. Each model in sorting knowledge base 226 may have the same threshold or each model may have a uniquely assigned threshold.
Junkmail module 218 operates in conjunction with content analysis engine 212 to determine a junkmail score for each message. Content analysis engine 212 applies the content information of the message to junkmail knowledge base 228. Junkman knowledge base 228 is a collection of information used by email productivity module 126 to analyze and classify messages. Junkmail knowledge base 228 may include any combination of statistical information about messages, domain or language in general, as well as rules, lexicons, thesauri, anthologies, and other natural language processing elements well known in the art. Junkman knowledge base 228 may also include thresholds, likelihood tables, and any other information used to classify a message. Thresholds may be designated by the user, predetermined by the designers of email productivity module 126, or automatically adjusted by email productivity module 126. In one embodiment, junkman knowledge base 228 is organized into a branched structure and includes on one branch a junk model and at the other a not junk model. The score generated when the content information is applied to the junk model is the junkmail score for the message. In one embodiment, the junkmail score is a whole number in a range of 0-100. The higher the junkman score, the higher the probability that the message is junkmail according to the criteria in junkmail knowledge base 228. Each model in junkmail knowledge base 228 may have the same threshold or each model may have a uniquely assigned threshold.
Prioritization module 214, message sorting module 216, and junkmail module 218 supply the priority score and priority level, the set of suggested folders, and the junkmail score, respectively, to email productivity add-in 124. Email productivity add-in 124 attaches fields for the priority score, priority level, set of suggested folders, and junkmail score to the message for display by email application 122. The user interface of email application 122 modified by email productivity add-in 124 is discussed below in conjunction with
Prioritization knowledge base 224, sorting knowledge base 226, and junkmail knowledge base 228 are updated by feedback from user input to email application 122. Email productivity add-in 124 monitors user inputs to email application 122 and reports these inputs as feedback to email productivity module 126. Prioritization module 214 may update prioritization knowledge base 224 using both explicit and implicit feedback. In other words, the terms “feedback” and “user action” are not limited to affirmative actions taken by the user, but rather extend to actions wherein the user accepts the result produced by the productivity module and/or refrains from modifying the result. The user may provide explicit feedback, for example, by changing a priority level that has been assigned to a message. For example, if a message has been assigned a priority level of low and the user feels that the message has a higher priority, then the user can assign a new priority level to the message, such as high. When the user assigns a new priority level to a message, prioritization module 214 assigns the message a priority score in the range of scores for that priority level. In one embodiment, prioritization module 214 assigns a score in the middle of the range of possible scores for the priority level assigned by the user. If the user does not provide explicit priority feedback for a message and does not delete the message but instead takes another action with respect to the email, implicit feedback may be provided to prioritization knowledge base 224. If the user reads or otherwise deals with messages in order of the relative priority scores, this action provides positive feedback to prioritization knowledge base 224. If the user reads messages in an order other than in descending order of priority score, this user action may provide negative feedback to prioritization knowledge base 224. Thus, prioritization knowledge base 224 is updated with feedback for every message received by email application 122. Updating of the prioritization knowledge base may be effected, for example, by adapting the models corresponding to each priority level in accordance with the feedback generated by user action. The feedback is preferably supplied to the prioritization module immediately after the relevant user action is taken to allow real-time adaptation of the models, thereby improving the accuracy and reliability of the prioritization function.
Message sorting module 216 updates sorting knowledge base 226 using feedback generated by user action, for example moving the received message to a selected folder for storage. When the user moves a message to a folder, email productivity add-in 124 provides explicit feedback to message sorting module 216. The user can move the message to one of the set of suggested folders or to any other folder, or create a new folder. When the user creates a new folder in email application 122, message sorting module 216 creates a new model in sorting knowledge base 226. Email productivity module 126 preferably learns in real time how the user prefers to store messages by updating sorting knowledge base 226 with feedback for each message moved into a folder.
Categories may be used to search for or locate messages, whether or not used in conjunction with a keyword search engine. In one embodiment, message sorting module 216 operates in conjunction with a category function native to email application 122. If the category function is enabled, a category is created for each folder of email application 122 and the user designates a category threshold. If a message receives one or more folder scores that exceeds the category threshold, then message sorting module 216 assigns the categories for these folders to the message. Although a message is stored in only one folder, the message may be assigned a plurality of categories. The user is then able to locate messages by category. Other implementations of a category function are within the scope of the invention, for example a category function in which the category names do not correspond to a folder of email application 122.
In one embodiment, message sorting module 216 includes an automove function that, when enabled by the user, will automatically move a received message to the highest scoring folder when the score for that folder exceeds a user-designated threshold value. For example, if message sorting module 216 determines a highest scoring folder with a score that exceeds the threshold for a received message, message sorting module 216 will notify email productivity add-in 124 to cause email application 122 to move the received message directly to the highest scoring folder instead of the inbox. When a message has been automoved to a folder, email productivity add-in 124 may provide implicit feedback to message sorting module 216 if the user reads the message and does not move it to another folder. If the user does move the message to a different folder, email productivity add-in 124 provides explicit feedback to message sorting module 216.
Junkmail module 218 updates junkmail knowledge base 228 using explicit and implicit feedback generated by user actions. The user provides explicit feedback to junkman module 218, for example, by taking an action indicating that a message is junkmail, for example by moving it to a junkmail folder. If the user reads a message and does not delete it or indicate that it is junkmail, junkmail module 218 receives implicit feedback that the message is not junkmail. If the user moves a message out of the junkman folder, junkman module 218 receives implicit feedback that the message is not junkmail. If the user deletes a message from the junkmail folder, junkman module 218 receives implicit feedback that the message is junkmail. In one embodiment, junkmail module 218 has an automove function that, when enabled by the user, will automatically move a received message to a junkman folder if the junkmail score for that message exceeds a user-designated threshold. Email productivity module 126 learns in real-time the user's criteria for junkmail by updating junkmail knowledge base 228 with feedback for each received message.
In one embodiment, junkmail knowledge base 228 may be updated using information provided from an external source. For example, an email service provider could implement a service whereby it generates rules and other information for filtering junkmail messages. Junkmail module 218 may, upon receipt of such rules and other information (which may supplied, for example, through network 110), update junkmail knowledge base 228 in accordance with the received information.
In one embodiment, email productivity module 126 includes an intelligent search function. The user may select a message, and instruct email productivity module 126 to find other similar messages. Content analysis engine 212 analyzes the selected message to identify concepts of the message, and then analyzes stored messages in all folders to identify similar messages.
In one embodiment, email productivity module 126 includes a folder management function. When enabled by the user, email productivity module 126 will analyze the content of previously stored messages in each folder and identify messages that may not belong in a particular folder according to the information in sorting knowledge base 226. The user may then decide to move such an identified message to a folder suggested by email productivity module 126, move the message to some other folder, or not move the message. Each of these actions provides feedback to message sorting module 216 and sorting knowledge base 226. The folder management function may also suggest to the user that certain folders be combined into a single folder, or a single folder be split up into multiple folders.
In one embodiment, email application 122 may forward copies of email messages to a wireless device. Email productivity module 126 can enhance this function by selectively forwarding copies of messages to a wireless device based on analysis of content. For example, the user may designate that messages that have a priority level of high should be forwarded to a wireless device. In another example, the user may designate that only messages that are automoved to a certain folder are to be copied to a wireless device. Email productivity module 126 can also enhance other functions of email application 122, for example a text-to-voice function that only converts messages having a high priority level to voice.
Email productivity module 126 may perform other automatic operations based on results generated by content analysis engine 212 and other components of the email productivity module. Such other automatic operations may include auto-forward to another email address, notification to the user that a message from a particular address has been received, automatically using a web browser to open an embedded hyperlink, or automatically opening an attachment.
It is noted that although the embodiment of the invention described and depicted herein includes prioritization, sorting, and junkmail filtering functions, this embodiment is intended as illustrative rather than limiting, and other embodiments within the scope of the invention may include a subset or superset of these functions.
Backup and synchronization module 316 is configured to copy the clients' knowledge bases as a backup in case of failure at one of the clients in network 100. Backup and synchronization module 316 is also configured to synchronize the information in the clients' junkmail knowledge bases 228. Backup and synchronization module 316 may also manage licensing of email productivity module 216 and email productivity add-in 214 on clients 120. Backup and synchronization module 316 may also synchronize the knowledge bases for users that use multiple instances of email application 122.
Productivity toolbar 430 includes buttons that allow the user to provide input to email productivity module 126. Productivity toolbar 430 includes, but is not limited to, a folder pull-down menu 432, a move button 436, a productivity module (PM) button 438, a junkmail button 440, a high button 442, a medium (med) button 444, a low button 446, and a score button 448. A window of folder pull-down menu 432 displays a highest scoring folder for a selected message in message window 460. The user can actuate an arrow button 434 to view the rest of the set of suggested folders and a “select a folder” choice (to select a folder that doesn't appear in the set of suggested folders). Folder pull-down menu 432 shows the folder name and score for each suggested folder. Actuating move button 426 moves the selected message to the folder currently selected in folder pull-down menu 432.
Actuating junkmail button 440 provides explicit feedback to junkman module 218 that the selected message in message window 460 is junkman. In one embodiment, actuating junkmail button 440 also moves the selected message to the junkmail folder or deletes the selected message. Actuating high button 442, medium button 444, or low button 446 provides explicit feedback to prioritization module 212 regarding the priority of the selected message in message window 460. Actuating score button 448 causes email productivity module 126 to score (or re-score) a selected message or messages in message window 460. In response to input from score button 448, the selected message or messages will be scored by prioritization module 214, message sorting module 216, and junkmail module 218.
Actuating productivity module 438 button opens a productivity module window (not shown) that allows the user to modify certain aspects of email productivity module 126. A message sorting tab allows the user to enable or disable an automove function for message sorting module 216, designate a sorting score threshold, enable or disable categories, designate a category threshold, and select a base folder. A junkmail tab allows the user to enable or disable an automove function for junkmail module 218 and designate a junkmail score threshold. The productivity module window may also include a help button that provides access to help regarding the functions of email productivity module 126.
Folder list 450 includes, but is not limited to, an inbox folder 452, a plurality of folders 454, a junkmail folder 456, and a deleted items folder 458. The user can select any of these folders to view the messages in that folder in message window 460. The user can move a message to a folder in folder list 450 by dragging and dropping the message from message window 460 to the folder in folder list 450. As discussed above, moving a message into a folder in folder list 450 provides feedback to message sorting module 216, and moving a message into junkmail folder 456 provides feedback to junkmail module 218.
Junkmail column 512 shows a junkmail score for each message as determined by junkman module 218. Priority score column 514 shows a priority score for each message and priority level column 516 shows a priority level for each message as determined by prioritization module 214. Message 532 is the currently selected message. The set of suggested folders for message 532 determined by message sorting module 216 is shown in folder pull-down menu 432 (
It is noted that different and/or additional visual indications be employed to represent the junkmail score, priority score, and priority levels of listed email messages. For example, messages having a high priority score and level may be presented in a brightly colored font or other manner that draws the user's attention, whereas messages assigned a low priority score can be presented in a duller font. In addition, the message window may be configured to sort the messages in order of priority score or other user-selected field such that messages having relatively greater importance to the user are grouped together above and apart from messages having relatively lesser importance.
Then, in step 620, email productivity module 126 determines whether a folder automove function is currently enabled. If the folder automove function is not enabled, the method continues with step 622. If the folder automove function is enabled, then in step 626 email productivity module 126 determines whether the score of the highest scoring folder of the set of suggested folders exceeds the designated threshold. If the score of the highest scoring folder does not exceed the designated threshold, then the method continues with step 622. If the score of the highest scoring folder exceeds the designated threshold, then in step 632, email productivity add-in 124 adds the priority score, priority level, set of suggested folders, and junkmail score fields to the message. Then, in step 638, email productivity add-in 124 sends the message to the highest scoring folder of email application 122.
In step 622, email productivity module 126 determines whether a junkmail automove function is enabled. If the junkman automove function is enabled, the method continues with step 624. If the junkmail automove function is not enabled, then in step 628 email productivity add-in 124 adds the priority score, priority level, set of suggested folders, and junkmail score fields to the message. In step 634, email productivity add-in 124 sends the message to the base folder, such as the inbox, of email application 122.
In step 624, email productivity module 126 determines whether the junkmail score for the message exceeds the designated threshold. If the junkmail score does not exceed the designated threshold, then the method continues with step 628, discussed above. If the junkman score exceeds the designated threshold, then in step 630 email productivity add-in 124 adds the priority score, priority level, set of suggested folders, and junkmail score fields to the message. In step 636 email productivity add-in 124 sends the message to the junkmail folder of email application 122.
It is noted that the steps set forth above are preferably performed automatically upon receipt of each incoming email. However, in other embodiments and implementations, the foregoing steps or portions thereof may be performed only on selected messages, at specified intervals, or responsively to a user request.
The invention has been described above with reference to specific embodiments. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The foregoing description and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.
This application is a continuation of patent application Ser. No. 09/602,588 filed on Jun. 21, 2000, by the same title and inventor. This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/112,230, entitled “System and Method for Determining a Set of Attributes Based on Content of Communications,” filed Mar. 27, 2002. This application is also related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/754,179, entitled “System and Method for Electronic Communication Management,” filed Jan. 3, 2001. The subject matter of the related applications is hereby incorporated by reference. The related applications are commonly assigned.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3648253 | Mullery et al. | Mar 1972 | A |
4110823 | Cronshaw et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4286322 | Hoffman et al. | Aug 1981 | A |
4586160 | Amano et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
4642756 | Sherrod | Feb 1987 | A |
4658370 | Erman et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4724523 | Kucera | Feb 1988 | A |
4805107 | Kieckhafer et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4814974 | Narayanan et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4908865 | Doddington et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
4918735 | Morito et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4942527 | Schumacher | Jul 1990 | A |
4984178 | Hemphill et al. | Jan 1991 | A |
5018215 | Nasr et al. | May 1991 | A |
5023832 | Fulcher et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5040141 | Yazima et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5051924 | Bergeron et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5060155 | Van Zuijlen | Oct 1991 | A |
5067099 | McCown et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5068789 | van Vliembergen | Nov 1991 | A |
5099425 | Kanno et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5101349 | Tokuume et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5111398 | Nunberg et al. | May 1992 | A |
5125024 | Gokcen et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5210872 | Ferguson et al. | May 1993 | A |
5228116 | Harris et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5230054 | Tamura | Jul 1993 | A |
5247677 | Welland et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5251129 | Jacobs | Oct 1993 | A |
5251131 | Masand et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5265033 | Vajk et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5278942 | Bahl et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5287430 | Iwamoto | Feb 1994 | A |
5321608 | Namba et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5325298 | Gallant | Jun 1994 | A |
5325526 | Cameron et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5345501 | Shelton | Sep 1994 | A |
5349526 | Potts et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5365430 | Jagadish | Nov 1994 | A |
5369570 | Parad | Nov 1994 | A |
5369577 | Kadashevich et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5371807 | Register et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5377354 | Scannell et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5418717 | Su et al. | May 1995 | A |
5418948 | Turtle | May 1995 | A |
5437032 | Wolf et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5444820 | Tzes et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5475588 | Schabes et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5483466 | Kawahara et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5487100 | Kane | Jan 1996 | A |
5493677 | Balogh et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5493692 | Theimer et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5506787 | Muhlfeld et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5526521 | Fitch et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5528701 | Aref | Jun 1996 | A |
5542088 | Jennings, Jr. et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5555344 | Zunkler | Sep 1996 | A |
5559710 | Shahraray et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5577241 | Spencer | Nov 1996 | A |
5590055 | Chapman et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5594641 | Kaplan et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5596502 | Koski et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5610812 | Scabes et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5615360 | Bezek et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5627914 | Pagallo | May 1997 | A |
5630128 | Farrell et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634053 | Noble et al. | May 1997 | A |
5634121 | Tracz et al. | May 1997 | A |
5636124 | Rischar et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5649215 | Itoh | Jul 1997 | A |
5664061 | Andreshak et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5680628 | Carus | Oct 1997 | A |
5687384 | Nagase | Nov 1997 | A |
5694616 | Johnson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5701400 | Amado | Dec 1997 | A |
5708829 | Kadashevich | Jan 1998 | A |
5715371 | Ahamed et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5721770 | Kohler | Feb 1998 | A |
5721897 | Rubinstein | Feb 1998 | A |
5724481 | Garberg et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5737621 | Kaplan et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5737734 | Schultz | Apr 1998 | A |
5745652 | Bigus | Apr 1998 | A |
5745736 | Picart | Apr 1998 | A |
5748973 | Palmer et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754671 | Higgins et al. | May 1998 | A |
5761631 | Nasukawa | Jun 1998 | A |
5765033 | Miloslavsky | Jun 1998 | A |
5768578 | Kirk et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5794194 | Takebayashi et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5799268 | Boguraev | Aug 1998 | A |
5802253 | Gross et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5806040 | Vensko | Sep 1998 | A |
5809462 | Nussbaum | Sep 1998 | A |
5809464 | Kopp et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5822731 | Schultz | Oct 1998 | A |
5822745 | Hekmatpour | Oct 1998 | A |
5826076 | Bradley et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5832220 | Johnson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5832470 | Morita et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835682 | Broomhead et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5845246 | Schalk | Dec 1998 | A |
5850219 | Kumomura | Dec 1998 | A |
5860059 | Aust et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864848 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5864863 | Burrows | Jan 1999 | A |
5867495 | Elliott et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5878385 | Bralich et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5878386 | Coughlin | Mar 1999 | A |
5884032 | Bateman et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5884302 | Ho | Mar 1999 | A |
5890142 | Tanimura et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5890147 | Peltonen et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5895447 | Ittycheriah et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5899971 | De Vos | May 1999 | A |
5913215 | Rubinstein et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920835 | Huzenlaub et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5933822 | Braden-Harder et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5937400 | Au | Aug 1999 | A |
5940612 | Brady et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940821 | Wical | Aug 1999 | A |
5944778 | Takeuchi et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5946388 | Walker et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5948058 | Kudoh et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5950184 | Kartutunen | Sep 1999 | A |
5950192 | Moore et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5956711 | Sullivan et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960393 | Cohrs et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5963447 | Kohn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5963894 | Riachardson et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5970449 | Alleva et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974385 | Ponting et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5974465 | Wong | Oct 1999 | A |
5983216 | Kirach | Nov 1999 | A |
5991713 | Unger et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991751 | Rivette et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991756 | Wu | Nov 1999 | A |
5995513 | Harrand et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999932 | Paul | Dec 1999 | A |
5999990 | Sharrit et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6006221 | Liddy et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6009422 | Ciccarelli | Dec 1999 | A |
6012053 | Pant et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018735 | Hunter | Jan 2000 | A |
6021403 | Horvitz et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6025843 | Sklar | Feb 2000 | A |
6026388 | Liddy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6032111 | Mohri et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6035104 | Zahariev | Mar 2000 | A |
6038535 | Campbell | Mar 2000 | A |
6038560 | Wical | Mar 2000 | A |
6055528 | Evans | Apr 2000 | A |
6058365 | Nagal et al. | May 2000 | A |
6058389 | Chandra et al. | May 2000 | A |
6061709 | Bronte | May 2000 | A |
6064953 | Maxwell, III et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064971 | Hartnett | May 2000 | A |
6064977 | Haverstock et al. | May 2000 | A |
6067565 | Horvitz | May 2000 | A |
6070149 | Tavor et al. | May 2000 | A |
6070158 | Kirsch et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073098 | Buchsbaum et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6073101 | Maes | Jun 2000 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6076088 | Paik et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081774 | de Hita et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6085159 | Ortega et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092042 | Iso | Jul 2000 | A |
6092095 | Maytal | Jul 2000 | A |
6092103 | Pritsch | Jul 2000 | A |
6094652 | Faisal | Jul 2000 | A |
6098047 | Oku et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6101537 | Edelstein et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112126 | Hales et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6115734 | Mansion | Sep 2000 | A |
6138128 | Perkowitz et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6138139 | Beck et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6144940 | Nishi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148322 | Sand et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6151538 | Bate et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154720 | Onishi et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6161094 | Adcock et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161130 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167370 | Tsourikov et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6169986 | Bowman et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182029 | Friedman | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182036 | Poppert | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182059 | Angotti et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182063 | Woods | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182065 | Yeomans | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182120 | Beaulieu et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185603 | Henderson et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199103 | Sakaguchi et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6212544 | Borkenhagen et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6223201 | Reznak | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226630 | Billmers | May 2001 | B1 |
6233575 | Agrawal et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233578 | Machihara et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236987 | Horowitz et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6243679 | Mohri et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6243735 | Imanishi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249606 | Kiraly et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6256773 | Bowman-Amuah | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6260058 | Hoenninger et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263335 | Paik et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269368 | Diamond | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6271840 | Finseth et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6275819 | Carter | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278973 | Chung et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282565 | Shaw et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292794 | Cecchini et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292938 | Sarkar et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298324 | Zuberec et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6301602 | Ueki | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304864 | Liddy et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304872 | Chao | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6308197 | Mason et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6311194 | Sheth et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314439 | Bates et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6314446 | Stiles | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324534 | Neal et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6327581 | Platt | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6349295 | Tedesco et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353667 | Foster et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6353827 | Davies et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360243 | Lindsley et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363373 | Steinkraus | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363377 | Kravets et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366910 | Rajaraman et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6370526 | Agrawal et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6374221 | Haimi-Cohen | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377945 | Risvik | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6377949 | Gilmour | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6389405 | Oatman et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393415 | Getchius et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6393465 | Leeds | May 2002 | B2 |
6397209 | Reed et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6397212 | Biffar | May 2002 | B1 |
6401084 | Ortega et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6408277 | Nelken | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411947 | Rice et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6411982 | Williams | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6415250 | van den Akker | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6418458 | Maresco | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421066 | Sivan | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6421675 | Ryan et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424995 | Shuman | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424997 | Buskirk et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430615 | Hellerstein et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434435 | Tubel et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434554 | Asami et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6434556 | Levin et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438540 | Nasr et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6438575 | Khan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442542 | Ramani et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442589 | Takahashi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6446061 | Doerre et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446081 | Preston | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6446256 | Hyman et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449589 | Moore | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6449646 | Sikora et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460074 | Fishkin | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6463533 | Calamera et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466940 | Mills | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477500 | Maes | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6477580 | Bowman-Amuah | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6480843 | Li | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6490572 | Akkiraju et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6493447 | Goss et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6493694 | Xu et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496836 | Ronchi | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6496853 | Klein | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6499021 | Abu-Hakima | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6505158 | Conkie | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6507872 | Geshwind | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6513026 | Horvitz et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6535795 | Zetlmeisl et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6542889 | Aggarwal et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6553358 | Horvitz | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560330 | Gabriel | May 2003 | B2 |
6560590 | Shwe et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6571282 | Bowman-Amuah | May 2003 | B1 |
6574480 | Foladare et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6574658 | Gabber et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6578025 | Pollack et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6584464 | Warthen | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6594697 | Praitis et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601026 | Appelt et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6607136 | Atsmon et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6611535 | Ljungqvist | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6611825 | Billheimer et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6615172 | Bennett et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6618727 | Wheeler et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6628194 | Hellebust et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6636733 | Helferich | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6651220 | Penteroudakis et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654726 | Hanzek | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654815 | Goss et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665662 | Kirkwood et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675159 | Lin et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6704728 | Chang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6708205 | Sheldon et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6711561 | Chang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714643 | Gargeya et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714905 | Chang et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6718367 | Ayyadurai | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732149 | Kephart | May 2004 | B1 |
6738759 | Wheeler et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6742015 | Bowman-Amuah | May 2004 | B1 |
6744878 | Komissarchik et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6745181 | Chang et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748387 | Garber et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6766320 | Wang et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6785671 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6832244 | Raghunandan | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6832245 | Isaacs et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6850513 | Pelissier | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6862710 | Machisio | Mar 2005 | B1 |
7007067 | Azvine et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
7047242 | Ponte | May 2006 | B1 |
7051277 | Kephart et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7076527 | Bellegarda et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7131057 | Ferrucci et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7200606 | Elkan | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7219054 | Begeja et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7272853 | Goodman et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7363590 | Kerr et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7366760 | Warren et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7370020 | Azvine et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7376701 | Bhargava et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7409336 | Pak et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7519668 | Goodman et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7565403 | Horvitz et al. | Jul 2009 | B2 |
9270625 | Alspector | Feb 2016 | B2 |
20010027463 | Kobayashi | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010042090 | Williams | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010047270 | Gusick et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010056456 | Cota-Robles | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020029825 | Kuehmann et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020032715 | Utsumi | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020049602 | Horvitz | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020052907 | Wakai et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020059161 | Li | May 2002 | A1 |
20020065953 | Alford et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020073129 | Wang et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078119 | Brenner et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078121 | Ballantyne | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078257 | Nishimura | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083251 | Chauvel et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020087618 | Bohm et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020087623 | Eatough | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020091746 | Umberger et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099714 | Murray | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020103871 | Pustejovsky | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107926 | Lee | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116463 | Hart | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020150966 | Muraca | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020196911 | Gao et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030028564 | Sanfilippo | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046297 | Mason | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030074397 | Morin et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030233419 | Beringer | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236845 | Pitsos | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040167889 | Chang et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040177120 | Kirsch | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040205135 | Hallam-Baker | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040225653 | Nelken et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040254904 | Nelken et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050187913 | Nelken et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2180392 | Feb 2001 | CA |
0 597 630 | May 1994 | EP |
0 304 191 | Feb 1999 | EP |
09106296 | Apr 1997 | JP |
0036487 | Jun 2000 | WO |
WO 0036487 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0184373 | Aug 2001 | WO |
0184374 | Aug 2001 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Androutsopoulos, Ion et al. “An Experimental Comparison of Naïve Bayesian and Keyword-Based Anti-Spam Filtering with Personal E-mail Messages.” Proceedings of the 23rd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM Press. Jul. 2000. 160-167. |
Browning, Brandon. “Getting Rid of Spam.” Linux Journal. Mar. 1998. Specialized Systems Consultants Inc. 4 pages. |
Cranor, Lorrie Faith et al. “Spam!”. Communications of the ACM. Aug. 1998. ACM Press. 74-83. |
Schneider, Karl-Michael. “A Comparison of Event Models for Naïve Bayes Anti-Spam E-Mail Filtering.” Proceedings of the tenth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. vol. 1. 307-314. Apr. 2003. |
Hall, Robert J. “How to Avoid Unwanted Email”. Communications of the ACM. vol. 41, No. 3. ACM Press. Mar. 1998. 88-95. |
Chai, Kian Ming Adam et al. “Bayesian online classifiers for text classification and filtering.” Proceedings of the 25th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. ACM Press. Aug. 2002. 97-104. |
Breese et al., “Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering,” Proc. of the 14th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1998. |
Czerwinski et al., “Visualizing Implicit Queries for Information Management and Retrieval,” Proc. of CHI 1999; ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1999. |
Dumais et al., “Inductive Learning Algorithms and Representations for Task Categorization,” Proc. of 7th Intl. Conf. on Information & Knowledge Management, 1998. |
Horvitz, “Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces,” Proc. of CHI 1999; ACM SIGCHI Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1999. |
Horvitz et al., “Display of Information for Time-Critical Decision Making,” Proc. of the 11th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1995. |
Horvitz et al., “The Lumiere Project: Bayesian User Modeling . . . ,” Proc. of the 14th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1998. |
Horvitz et al., “Time-Dependent Utility and Action Under Uncertainty,” Proc. of the 7th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1991. |
Horvitz et al., “Time-Critical Action: Representations and Application,” Proc. of the 13th Conf. on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1997. |
Koller et al., “Toward Optimal Feature Selection,” Proc. of 13th Conf. on Machine Learning, 1996. |
Lieberman, “Letizia: An Agent That Assists in Web Browsing,” Proc. of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995. |
Platt, “Fast Training of Support Vector Machines Using Sequential Minimal Optimization,” Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. |
Platt, “Probabilistic Outputs for Support Vector Machines & Comparisons to Regularized Likelihood Methods,” Adv. in Large Margin Classifiers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999. |
Sahami et al., “A Bayesian Approach to Filtering Junk E-Mail,” Amer. Assoc. for Art. Intell. Technical Report WS-98-05, 1998. |
Cohen, “Learning Rules that Classify E-Mail,” AT&T Laboratories, 1996. |
Lewis, “Evaluating and Optimizing Autonomous Text Classification Systems,” ACM SIGIR, 1995. |
Lewis et al., “Training Algorithms for Linear Text Classifiers,” ACM SIGIR, 1996. |
Apte et al., “Automated Learning of Decision Rules for Text Categorization,” ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 12, No. 3, 1994. |
Losee, Jr., “Minimizing Information Overload: The Ranking of Electronic Messages,” Journal of Information Science 15, 1989. |
Joachimes, “Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Leaming with Many Relevant Features,” Universitat Dortmund, Germany, 1998. |
Apte, C. et al., “Automated Learning of Decision Rules for Text Categorization”, IBM Research Report RC 18879, to appear in ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 233-251, 1994. |
Breese, John S et al., “Empirical Analysis of Predictive Algorithms for Collaborative Filtering”, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, Jul. 1998, Morgan Kaufman Publisher. |
Cohen, William W., “Learning Rules That Classify E-Mail”, In Proceedings of the 1996 AAAI Spring Symposium on Machine Learning in Information Access. |
Czerwinski, Mary et al., “Visualizing Implicit Queries for Information Management and Retrieval”, Proceedings of CHI '99, ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, May 15-20, 1999, pp. 560-567. |
Dumais, Susan et al., “Inductive Learning Algorithms and Representations for Text Categorization”, Proceedings of Seventh International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM98), Bethesda MD, Nov. 1998, ACM Press, pp. 148-155. |
Horvitz, Eric et al., “Display of Information for Time-Critical Decision Making”, Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, Canada, Aug. 1995, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (San Francisco, CA), pp. 296-305. http://research.microsoft.com/˜horvitz/vista.htm. |
Horvitz, Eric, “Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces”, Proceedings of CHI 1999; ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1999. |
Horvitz, Eric et al., “The Lumiere Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users”, Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Madison, WI, Jul. 1998, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, pp. 256-265. http://research.microsoft.com/˜horvitz/lumiere.htm. |
Horvitz, Eric et al., “Time-Critical Action: Representations and Application”, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Jul. 1997. |
Horvitz, Eric et al., “Time-Dependent Utility and Action Under Uncertainty”, In Proceedings of Seventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 151-158, Morgan Kaufman (San Mateo, CA), Jul. 1991. |
Joachims, Thorsten, “Text Categorization With Support Vector Machines: Learning With Many Relevant Features”, In Proceedings 10th European Conference on Machine Learning (ECML), Springer Verlag, 1998. http://www-ai.cs.uni-dortmund.de/KOKIMENTE/Joachims—97a.ps.gz. |
Koller, Daphne et al., “Toward Optimal Feature Selection”, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 284-292, 1996. |
Lewis, David D., “Evaluating and Optimizing Autonomous Text Classification Systems”, ACM SIGIR '95, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 246-254, 1995. ACM 0-89791-714-6/95/07.S3.50. |
Lewis, David D., et al., “Training Algorithms for Linear Text Classifiers”, ACM SIGIR '96, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 298-306, 1996. ACM 0-89791-792-8/96/08.S3/50. |
Lieberman, Henry, “Letizia: An Agent That Assists in Web Browsing”, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Montreal, Canada, Aug. 1995. |
Losee, Robert M., “Minimizing Information Overload: the Ranking of Electronic Messages”, Journal of Information Science 15, 1989, pp. 179-189. 0165-5515/89/S3.50, 1989, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. |
Platt, John C., “Fast Training of Support Vector Machines Using Sequential Minimal Optimization”, To appear in: B. Scholkopf, C. Burges, and A. Smola (Eds.) “Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning”, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, London, England, 1999, pp. 185-208. ISBN 0-262-19416-3. |
Platt, John C., “Probabilistic Outputs for Support Vector Machines and Comparisons to Regularized Likelihood Methods”, To appear in: Alexander J. Smola et al. (Eds.) “Advances in Large Margin Classifiers”, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, Mar. 26, 1999, pp. 1-11. |
Sahami, Mehran, et al., “A Bayesian Approach to Filtering Junk E-Mail”, American Association for Artificial Intelligence Technical Report WS-98-05, Workshop on Text Categorization, Jul. 1998. http://robotics.stanford.edu/users/sahami/papers-dir/spam.ps. |
“Grammar-like Functional Rules for Representing Query Optimization Alternative,” 1998 ACM, pp. 18-27. |
Khan et al., “Personal Adaptive Web Agent: A Tool for Information Filtering,” Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, vol. 1, May 25, 1997, pp. 305-308. |
Davies et al., “Knowledge Discovery and Delivery,” British Telecommunications Engineering, London, GB, vol. 17, No. 1, Apr. 1, 1998, pp. 25-35. |
Persin, “Document Filtering for Fast Ranking,” Sigir 94. Dublin, Jul. 3-6, 1994, Proceedings of the Annual International ACM-Sigir Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Berlin, Springer, DE, vol. CONF. 17, Jul. 3, 1994, pp. 339-348. |
Han et al., “WebACE: A Web Agent for Document Categorization and Exploration,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN, May 9-13, 1998, Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents, New York, NY, May 9, 1998, pp. 408-415. |
Shimazu et al., “CAPIT: Natural Language Interface Design Tool with Keyword Analyzer and Case-Based Parser,” NEC Research and Development, Nippon Electric Ltd., Tokyo, JP, vol. 33, No. 4, Oct. 1, 1992, pp. 679-688. |
Computer Dictionsry, Microsoft Press, 1997, Third Edition, p. 192. |
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, G.&C. Meriam Company, 1961, pp. 538, 834, 1460. |
Moore et al., “Web Page Categorization and Feature Selection Using Association Rule and Principal Component Clustering,” Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Information Technologies and Systems, Dec. 1997, 10 pages. |
Mase, “Experiments on Automatic Web Page Categorization for IR Systems,” Technical Report, Stanford University, 1998, pp. 1-12. |
Berners-Lee et al., “The Semantic Web,” Scientific American.com, May 17, 2001, 9 pages. |
Brasethvik et al., “A Conceptual Modeling Approach to Semantic Document Retrieval,” Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, May 27-31, 2002, pp. 167-182. |
Firepond eService Provider, http://www.firepond.com/products/eserviceperformer, 2 pages. |
Banter White Paper:, “Natural Language Engines or Advanced Customer Interaction,” by Banter Inc., pp. 1-13. |
Banter Technology RME, “The Foundation for Quality E-Communications,” Technical White Paper, pp. 1-9. |
Webster's Computer Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, P.E. Margolis, 1999, 3 pages. |
Morelli et al., “Predicting Technical Communication in Product Development Organizations,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 42, issue 3, Aug. 1995, pp. 1-16. |
Parmentier et al., “Logical Structure Recognition of Scientific Bibliographic References,” 4th Int'l. Conf. on Document Analysis and Recognition, vol. 2, Aug. 18-20, 1997, pp. 1072-1076. |
Kalogeraki et al., “Using Multiple Feedback Loops for Object Profiling . . . ,” IEEE Int'l Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing, May 2-5, 1999, 10 pages. |
Johnson et al., “Adaptive Model-Based Neural Network Control,” IEEE Int'l Conf. on Robotics and Automation, May 13-18, 1990, pp. 1704-1709. |
McKinnon et al., “Data Communications and Management of a Distributed Network of Automated Data Acquisition Systems,” 1997 IEEE Nuclear Science Symp., Nov. 1997, pp. 730-733. |
searchCRM.com Definitions (contact center), http://www.searchcrm.techtarget.com. 1 page. |
“Transforming Your Call Center Into a Contact Center: Where Are You? Trends and Recommendations,” An IDC Executive Brief (#33), Jun. 2001, pp. 1-7. |
Hawkins et al., “The Evolution of the Call Center to the ‘Customer Contact Center’”, ITSC White Paper, Feb. 2001, pp. 1-30. |
Computer Dictionary, Microsoft Press, 1997, Third Edition, p. 192. |
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, G.&C. Meriam Company, 1961, pp. 538,834, 1460. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09602588 | Jun 2000 | US |
Child | 10112230 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10112230 | Mar 2002 | US |
Child | 10610964 | US |