A hierarchical online classifier for patent categorization

Emerging Technologies of Text Mining: Techniques and Applications

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 244-267

  Tikk, Domonkos ^a   Biró, György ^b   Törcsvári, Attila ^c  

^a BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY AND ECONOMICS   (Hungary)

^b TextMiner Ltd   (Hungary)

^c Arcanum Development Ltd   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862274339     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-59904-373-9.ch012     Document Type: Chapter

References (41)

1. th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 64-72). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
2. th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM'04), Washington, DC (pp. 78-87). New York: ACM Press.
3. rd Very Large Date Bases Conference (pp. 446-455). Athens, Greece: Morgan Kaufmann.
4. Chakrabarti, S., Dom, B., Agrawal, R., & Raghavan P. (1998). Scalable feature selection, classification and signature generation for organizing large text databases into hierarchicaltopic taxonomies. Very Large Date Bases Journal, 7(3), 163-178.
5. Chakrabarti, S., Dom B., & Indyk, P. (1998). Enhanced hypertext categorization using hyperlinks. In Proceedings SIGMOD98, ACM International Conference on Management of Data, Seattle, Washington (pp. 307-318). New York: ACM Press.
6. Cohen, W.W., & Singer, Y. (1999). Context sensitive learning methods for text categorization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems,17(2), 141-173.
7. nd Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 97), Providence, Rhode Island (pp. 55-63). Somerset, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics.
8. rd International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICML'04) (pp. 209-216), Banff, AB, Canada. Morgan Kaufmann.
9. rd ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR'00), Athens, Greece (pp. 256-263). New York: ACM Press.
10. Fall, C.J., Törcsvári, A., Benzineb, K., & Karetka, G. (2003). Automated categorization in the international patent classification. ACM SIGIR Forum Archive, 37(1), 10-25.
11. Fall, C.J., Törcsvári, A., Fievét, P., & Karetka, G. (2003). Additional readme information for WIPO-de autocategorization data set. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.wipo.int/ibis/datasets/wipo-de-readme.html
12. Fall, C.J., Törcsvári, A., & Karetka, G. (2002). Readme information for WIPO-alpha autocategorization training set. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://www.wipo.int/ibis/datasets/wipo-alpha-readme.html
13. th Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PAKDD'04), Sydney, Australia (LNAI 3056, pp. 22-30). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
14. th International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 182-190), Bari, Italy: Morgan Kaufmann.
15. GUIEX (2005). Guidelines for examination in the European patent office. Published by the European Patent Office Directorate Patent Law 5.2.1. Munich: European Patent Office. ISBN 3-89605-074-5.
16. Halácsy, P. (2005). Benefits of deep NLP-based lemmatization for information retrieval. In Working Notes for the CLEF 2006 Workshop, Alicante, Spain.
17. Hofmann, T., Cai, L., & Ciaramita, M., (2003). Learning with taxonomies: Classifying documents and words. In Workshop on Syntax, Semantics, and Statistics (NIPS'03), Whistler, BC, Canada.
18. Kando, N. (2000). What shall we evaluate? Preliminary discussion for the NTCIR Patent IR Challenge based on the brainstorming with the specialized intermediaries in patent searching and patent attorneys. In ACM-SIGIR Workshop on Patent Retrieval, Athens, Greece (pp. 37-42). New York: ACM Press.
19. Kohonen, T., Kaski, S., Lagus, K., Salojärvi, J., Honkela, J., Paatero, V., et al. (2000). Self organization of a massive document collection. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, 11(3), 574-585.
20. th International Conference on Machine Learning, 14, (pp. 170-178). Nashville, Tennessee: Morgan-Kaufmann.
21. Koster, C.H.A., Seutter M., & Beney, J. (2001). Classifying patent applications with Winnow. In Proceedings of Benelearn 2001 Conference (pp. 19-26). Antwerpen, Belgium.
22. Krier, M., & Zaccà, F. (2002). Automatic categorization applications at the European Patent Office. World Patent Information, 24, 187-196.
23. th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-98). Madison, Wisconsin.
24. th ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, Berkeley, California (pp. 179-187). New York: ACM Press.
25. th ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Zürich, Switzerland (pp. 298-306). New York: ACM Press.
26. th National Conference of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 591-496). Providence, Rhode Island: AAAI Press.
27. Littlestone, N. (1988). Learning quickly when irrelevant attributes around: A new linear-threshold algorithm. Machine Learning, 2, 285-318.
28. th International Conference on Machine Learning, San Francisco (pp. 353-361). Morgan Kaufmann.
29. th International Conference of Machine Learning (pp. 359-367). Madison, Wisconsin: Morgan Kaufmann.
30. th ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Philadelphia (pp. 67-73). New York: ACM Press.
31. rd International Conference on Mechatronics (pp. 539-544). Budapest, Hungary.
32. Rosenblatt, F. (1958). The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in brain. Psychological Review, 65, 386-407. (Reprinted in Neurocomputing. MIT Press, 1988).
33. nd International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 745-752). Bonn, Germany: Omnipress.
34. Ruiz, M.E., & Srinivasan, P. (2002). Hierarchicaltext categorization using neural networks. Information Retrieval, 5(1), 87-118.
35. Schapire, R. (2001). The boosting approach to machine learning: An overview. In MSRI Workshop on Nonlinear Estimation and Classification, Berkeley, California.
36. th ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Seattle, Washington (pp. 229-237). New York: ACM Press.
37. Sebastiani, F. (2002). Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Computing Surveys, 34(1), 1-47.
38. Tikk, D., Kardkovács, Zs T., & Szidarovszky, F.P., (2006). Voting with a parameterized veto strategy: Solving the KDD Cup 2006 problem by means of a classifier committee. Special Interest Group on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining Explorations Exploration Newsletter, 8(2), 53-62.
39. Tikk, D., Yang, J.D., & Bang, S.L. (2003). Hierarchicaltext categorization using fuzzy relational thesaurus. Kybernetika, 39(5), 583-600.
40. Trappey, A.J.C., Hsu, F.-C., Trappey, C.V., & Lin C.-I., (2006). Development of a patent document classification and search platform using a back-propagation network. Expert Systems with Applications, 31(4), 755-765.
41. nd ACM Symposium on Document Engineering, McLean, Virginia (pp. 111-118). New York: ACM Press.