Source: http://www.google.de/patents/US8533223
Timestamp: 2017-12-17 16:01:17
Document Index: 608893267

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application No. 09', 'Application No. 09', 'Application No. 09175979', 'Application No. 09175979', 'Application No. 09175979', 'Application No. 09175979', 'Application No. 09180776', 'application No. 10167947', 'application No. 10162666']

Patent US8533223 - Disambiguation and tagging of entities - Google Patentsuche
Tagging of content items and entities identified therein may include a matching process, a classification process and a disambiguation process. Matching may include the identification of potential matching candidate entities in a content item whereas the classification process may categorize or group...http://www.google.de/patents/US8533223?utm_source=gb-gplus-sharePatent US8533223 - Disambiguation and tagging of entities
Veröffentlichungsnummer US8533223 B2
Anmeldenummer US 12/464,392
Auch veröffentlicht unter CA2703569A1, EP2251795A2, EP2251795A3, US9626424, US20100293195, US20140040272
Veröffentlichungsnummer 12464392, 464392, US 8533223 B2, US 8533223B2, US-B2-8533223, US8533223 B2, US8533223B2
Erfinder David F. Houghton
Ursprünglich Bevollmächtigter Comcast Interactive Media, LLC.
Patentzitate (171), Nichtpatentzitate (53), Referenziert von (16), Klassifizierungen (11), Juristische Ereignisse (2)
US 8533223 B2
Tagging of content items and entities identified therein may include a matching process, a classification process and a disambiguation process. Matching may include the identification of potential matching candidate entities in a content item whereas the classification process may categorize or group identified candidate entities according to known entities to which they are likely a match. In some instances, a candidate entity may be categorized with multiple known entities. Accordingly, a disambiguation process may be used to reduce the potential matches to a single known entity. In one example, the disambiguation process may include ranking potentially matching known entities according to a hierarchy of criteria.
identifying, at a processor, a candidate entity in a media content item, wherein the candidate entity is a potential identification of a first known entity, wherein the media content item comprises a plurality of words or phrases and wherein the candidate entity corresponds to a first word or first phrase of the plurality of words or phrases;
performing a first categorization of the candidate entity based on a first set of factors, wherein the first categorization comprises categorizing at least one other candidate entity following the candidate entity in the media content item according to a sequence in which the media content item is to be consumed by a user, wherein the at least one other candidate entity corresponds to a second word or second phrase of the plurality of words or phrases;
performing a second categorization of the candidate entity, after the first categorization, based on a second set of factors, wherein the second set of factors is different from the first set of factors and comprises, at least in part, results of the first categorization associated with the at least one other candidate entity;
determining, after the second categorization, that the candidate entity is categorized with a plurality of known entities;
in response to determining that the candidate entity is categorized with the plurality of known entities, selecting one of the plurality of known entities corresponding to the candidate entity, and
tagging the candidate entity, based on the selection of the one of the plurality of known entities and separately from tagging the at least one other candidate entity, as identifying the selected one of the plurality of known entities.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the candidate entity in the media content item is performed using string matching.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the candidate entity includes at least one of: a person's name and a title of a content item.
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of factors includes a rate of co-occurrence between the candidate entity and the at least one other candidate entity.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein tagging the candidate entity includes assigning, in the memory, a database identifier of one of the plurality of known entities to the candidate entity.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of factors includes a word that immediately follows the candidate entity in the media content item.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of known entities includes the first known entity and a second known entity and wherein selecting one of the plurality of known entities corresponding to the candidate entity includes:
ranking the first known entity and the second known entity based on a first categorization reliability criterion;
determining that the first known entity is ranked lower than the second known entity; and
removing the first known entity as a potential identification of the candidate entity.
8. The method of claim 1, further comprising associating the tagged candidate entity with a link to additional information about the candidate entity.
discarding the at least one other candidate entity as a potential identification of the first known entity during the second categorization;
determining, after completing the first and second categorizations, that a set of one or more candidate entities in the media content item are categorized as identifying the first known entity; and
in response to determining that the set of one or more candidate entities are categorized as identifying the first known entity, adding the at least one other candidate entity to the set of one or more candidate entities categorized as identifying the first known entity.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of words or phrases are identified from at least one of: text, an image and speech.
11. The method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of known entities includes a third known entity and wherein selecting one of the plurality of known entities corresponding to the candidate entity further includes:
ranking the third known entity and the second known entity based on a second categorization reliability criterion;
determining that the third known entity is ranked lower than the second known entity based on the second match categorization criterion; and
removing the third known entity as a potential identification of the candidate entity.
12. The method of claim 7, wherein the first categorization reliability criterion includes a number of candidate entities in the media content item categorized as potential identifications of the first known entity or the second known entity.
13. The method of claim 7, wherein the first categorization reliability criterion includes a categorization confidence.
14. The method of claim 7, wherein the first categorization reliability criterion includes a co-occurrence rate between the candidate entity and another candidate entity that is categorized with only one known entity.
15. One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer readable instructions that, when executed, cause an apparatus to:
identify, at the apparatus, a candidate entity in a media content item, wherein the candidate entity is a potential identification of a first known entity wherein the media content item comprises a plurality of words or phrases and wherein the candidate entity corresponds to a first word or first phrase of the plurality of words or phrases;
perform a first categorization of the candidate entity based on a first set of factors, wherein the first categorization comprises categorizing at least one other candidate entity following the candidate entity in the media content item according to a sequence in which the media content is configured to be consumed by a user, wherein the at least one other candidate entity corresponds to a second word or second phrase of the plurality of words or phrases;
perform a second categorization of the candidate entity after the first categorization based on a second set of factors, wherein the second set of factors is different from the first set of factors and comprises at least in part, results of the first categorization associated with the at least one other candidate entity;
determine, after the second categorization, that the candidate entity is categorized with a plurality of known entities;
in response to determining that the candidate entity is categorized with a plurality of known entities, select one of the plurality of known entities corresponding to the candidate entity; and
tag the candidate entity, based on the selection of the one of the plurality of known entities and separately from tagging the at least one other candidate entity, as identifying the selected one of the plurality of known entities.
16. The one or more computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the first set of factors includes a word that immediately follows the candidate entity in the content item.
17. The one or more computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the plurality of known entities includes the first known entity and a second known entity and wherein selecting one of the plurality of known entities corresponding to the candidate entity includes:
removing the first known entity as a potential match with the candidate entity.
receiving a sequence of words or phrases occurring in a piece of video, audio, audiovisual, or textual content;
sequentially processing the sequence of words or phrases in a first categorization process, wherein the first categorization process includes categorizing each of a first word or phrase and a second word or phrase in the sequence as identifying one or more corresponding known entities, wherein the second word or phrase follows the first word or phrase in the sequence, and wherein categorizing the first word or phrase during the first categorization process is performed without using a categorization of the second word or phrase;
processing the sequence of words or phrases in a second categorization process including performing another categorization of the first word or phrase using the categorization of the second word or phrase resulting from the first categorization process;
upon determining that the first word or phrase is categorized with a plurality of known entities, selecting one of the plurality of known entities as being identified by the first word or phrase; and
tagging the first word or phrase as identifying the selected one of the plurality of known entities.
identify a candidate entity in a media content item, wherein the candidate entity is a potential identification of a first known entity, wherein the media content item comprises a plurality of words or phrases and wherein the candidate entity corresponds to a first word or first phrase of the plurality of words or phrases;
perform a second categorization of the candidate entity, after the first categorization, based on a second set of factors, wherein the second set of factors is different from the first set of factors and comprises, at least in part, results of the first categorization associated with the at least one other candidate entity;
in response to determining that the candidate entity is categorized with the plurality of known entities, select one of the plurality of known entities corresponding to the candidate entity; and
receive a sequence of words or phrases occurring in a piece of video, audio, audiovisual, or textual content;
sequentially process the sequence of words or phrases in a first categorization process, wherein the first categorization process includes categorizing each of a first word or phrase and a second word or phrase in the sequence as identifying one or more corresponding known entities, wherein the second word or phrase follows the first word or phrase in the sequence, and wherein categorizing the first word or phrase during the first categorization process is performed without using a categorization of the second word or phrase;
process the sequence of words or phrases in a second categorization process including performing another categorization of the first word or phrase using the categorization of the second word or phrase resulting from the first categorization process;
upon determining the first word or phrase is categorized with a plurality of known entities, select one of the plurality of known entities as being identified by the first word or phrase; and
tag the first word or phrase as identifying the selected one of the plurality of known entities.
21. One or more non-transitory computer readable media storing computer readable instructions that, when executed, cause an apparatus to:
receive a sequence of words or phrases occurring in a piece of video, audio, audio visual or textual content;
upon determining that the first word or phrase is categorized with a plurality of known entities, select one of the plurality of known entities as being identified by the first word or phrase; and
Aspects of the invention relate to identifying entities in an information stream. Specifically, aspects are directed to resolving ambiguities in tagging entities in various types of media.
With the advent of the Internet and computing technologies in general, information about a wide array of topics has become readily available. The accessibility of such information allows a person to read about a topic and immediately obtain additional information about an entity mentioned in the article, webpage, white paper or other media. The entity may be a person, a movie, a song, a book title and the like. Alternatively, a person may wish to add the article or webpage to a database of information about the entity mentioned. However, the process of confirming that the entity mentioned corresponds to a particular known entity (e.g., a known entity in a database or an entity identified through a search) may be tedious and time consuming. Furthermore, tagging or associating an entity with the wrong person or title may lead to various inefficiencies in a system.
One or more aspects described herein relate to identifying and tagging entities in a content item. In one example, an article about a scientific breakthrough may name the scientists that were involved in the effort and the institution (e.g., a school) where the research took place. The scientists and the institution may each be tagged as a known entity if those scientists or the institution are known to a database or system. By tagging the scientists or institution, a processing system may link a user to additional information about each of the entities such as other articles, videos and the like. Additionally or alternatively, content items, once tagged, may be organized or sorted based on entities that are referenced therein.
According to another aspect, candidate entities (i.e., entities that have not been confirmed as references to known entities) may be associated with some level of ambiguity in view of the candidate entity's similarity to multiple known entities. In such instances, the ambiguity is resolved before the candidate entity is tagged. Thus, disambiguation may be performed and may include the sorting and ranking of the multiple known entities for which the conflicted candidate entity may be a match according to a hierarchy of criteria. Once sorted, the lowest ranked known entity may be removed from consideration. The process may repeat until a single known entity remains, at which point the candidate entity may be tagged as corresponding to the remaining known entity.
According to yet another aspect, the identification, classification and disambiguation process for candidate entities may be based on prior knowledge that is collected from a variety of sources either automatically or manually or both. For example, some articles or other content items may be manually tagged to identify people mentioned in those content items. Accordingly, the manual decisions and taggings may serve as a basis for the matching, categorization and disambiguation of candidate entities. Language models and finite state automata (e.g., built by the prior knowledge) may also be used to classify and identify candidate entities in a content item. Finite state automata (FSA) refer generally to process models comprising a number of finite states and transitions between the states and actions. FSAs may be used to identify subsequences of characters in strings, e.g., to find potential names. The language model may then assign probabilities to the identified strings, allowing for the identification of unusual uses of language, and in particular ordinary phrases used as names.
According to one or more configurations, a feature detector may be used to identify attributes of a tagged content item or entity that may help with the matching, classification and disambiguation of other content items or entities. For example, if a person is referred to using an epithet in a tagged content item, the processing system may use or look for the epithet to determine whether a candidate entity in another content item refers to the same person.
FIG. 2 illustrates an example content item that may be analyzed and tagged according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 3 illustrates an example method for identifying and classifying candidate entities in a content item according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 4 illustrates an example of co-occurrence in a content item according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 5 illustrates an example method for disambiguating candidate entities according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIGS. 6A and 6B illustrate example reference chains according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 7 illustrates an example block diagram of an apparatus for receiving content item data and generating content item recommendations according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 8 illustrates a tagged content item and information accessible through the tagged content item according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 9 illustrates a method for associating links to additional information with a tagged content item according to one or more aspects described herein.
FIG. 1 illustrates a content processing and distribution system 100 that may be used in connection with one or more aspects described herein. The distribution system 100 may include a headend 102, a network 104, set top boxes (STB) 106 and corresponding receiving devices (i.e., receiver, transceiver, etc.) 108. The distribution system 100 may be used as a media service provider/subscriber system wherein the provider (or vendor) generally operates the headend 102 and the network 104 and also provides a subscriber (i.e., client, customer, service purchaser, user, etc.) with the STB 106.
The headend 102 may include a plurality of devices 110 (e.g., devices 110 a-110 n) such as data servers, computers, processors, security encryption and decryption apparatuses or systems, and the like configured to provide video and audio data (e.g., movies, music, television programming, games, and the like), processing equipment (e.g., provider operated subscriber account processing servers), television service transceivers (e.g., transceivers for standard broadcast television and radio, digital television, HDTV, audio, MP3, text messaging, gaming, etc.), and the like. At least one of the devices 110 (e.g., a sender security device 110×), may include a security system.
Information systems such as headend 102, websites 114 or content providers 116 may include databases that store known entities such as people (e.g., actors, directors), names of content items (e.g., movies, songs, television shows) and the like. Information about these entities may be tracked and stored so that content items relating to the same entity may be linked. Entities, as used herein, refer generally to unique objects to which a content item may make reference. In one example, a user reading an article about a movie may be provided with links to additional information about the movie, actors, directors or other people mentioned in the article, other movies, songs and the like. The database may be consulted to determine if the entities mentioned in the article are known to the system and if so, any additional information relating to the entities may be provided to the user.
FIG. 2 illustrates an example content item that makes reference to multiple known entities. Known entities, as used herein, refer to a unique individual or object (e.g., a movie, book, location, etc.) that is recognized by a processing system. In one or more configurations, known entities may be associated with a database identifier in the system. Content item 200 includes an article 201 having multiple passages 203. Each of these passages 203 may include one or more references 205 to known entities. Accordingly, a content processing system may provide a robust reading interface by identifying and tagging these references 205 as corresponding to known entities. For example, a tagging system may, once entities have been tagged, provide a user with additional information such as articles, videos, biographies and the like about the entities.
FIG. 8 illustrates an example of a tagged content item 801 in which entities have been tagged and converted into hyperlinks 803. In the illustrated example, only a first reference to an entity may be converted to a hyperlink. By selecting and following hyperlinks 803, a user may be provided with a list 805 of additional information about the entity corresponding to the selected hyperlink. For example, selecting hyperlink 803 a may cause list 805 containing additional articles and other content relating to “Bridget Jones” to be displayed. A tagging system may retrieve such articles from a database in which information and content is associated with particular known entities. Accordingly, once a candidate entity has been tagged as corresponding to a particular known entity, the information and content associated with the known entity may be retrieved and provided to the user.
In some instances, however, identifying and tagging entities in a content item may be difficult due to ambiguities. For example, the same name or title may correspond to multiple known entities. Accordingly, such ambiguities may be resolved with a sufficient degree of accuracy to provide a benefit to users. Aspects described herein relate to the identification, disambiguation and tagging of entities in a content item. The process may include various processes including a text or string matching process, a classification process and a disambiguation process. The text matching process generally includes the identification of candidate entities through a comparison of words and phrases in a content item with known entities. In one example, words or phrases may be processed for matches using a set of finite state automata. A candidate entity refers to a reference (e.g., a word or phrase) in a content item that meets a threshold probability of corresponding to a known entity. In one example, a candidate entity may include a set of all substrings that match a particular regular expression corresponding to a known entity. The classification process then takes the candidate entities and categorizes the entities into one or more categories corresponding to types of entities. Types of entities may include celebrities, movie titles, song names, actors, musicians, false positives and the like. By categorizing the entities in such a manner, some level of disambiguation is accomplished. Additionally, false positives may be weeded out of the processing stream. In the disambiguation process, candidate entities that are ambiguous within a category (e.g., two actors with the same name) may be further evaluated to identify the correct or most likely matching known entity. Each of these processes is described in further detail herein.
FIG. 3 illustrates an example method for identifying and classifying candidate entities. In step 300, a content item may be received. The content item may include audio, video, text and/or combinations thereof such as a web page. In step 305, candidate entities may be identified in the content item using string matching. For example, for textual content, words or phrases in the content item may be compared to the names or titles or known entities to determine if a potential match exists. In another example, audio content may be evaluated using speech recognition while video content may be analyzed for candidate entities using pattern matching techniques, speech recognition or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, a match may be defined as two words or phrases that meet a specified level of similarity. Thus, misspelled words may also be identified as a match (i.e., a candidate entity) so long as the specified amount of the word is spelled correctly. For example, if 4 out of 5 (i.e., 80%) letters in a first word matches a second word and a specified match threshold is 75%, then the first word may be considered a match with the second word.
Once candidate entities have been identified using a string matching process, the identified candidate entities may be processed using statistical tagging and analysis in step 307. The statistical tagging and analysis may include 2 classification steps 310 and 315. In step 310, a first classification process may be used to sort the identified candidate entities into groups corresponding to known entities. Candidate entities may be classified into groups if they are determined to be a potential match with the known entity corresponding to a particular group. The classification may include statistical analyses and may be based on a variety of factors including the matches determined in the candidate entity identification process of step 305, textual information surrounding the candidate entity in the content item and/or decisions made for preceding candidate entities. Textual information may be considered to be surrounding a candidate entity if the text is within a predefined distance or number of words. Alternatively, surrounding textual information may be defined by a distance in characters, words, sentences, or paragraphs and/or combinations thereof. For other types of content items such as video or audio, surrounding material may be defined by a predefined amount of time around a candidate entity. In one example, a gender of the candidate entity may be determined based on surrounding key words such as in the phrase “Bridget plays a woman” (determining that Bridget is female based on the phrase “plays a woman”). In another example, a feature for determining whether an entity corresponds to a movie title may be defined as occurring 5 or fewer words after a set X of words, where set X includes a list of words that tend to correlate to movies. Thus, the above example movie feature detector may be used to determine that entity candidate ABC in the phrase “ABC was shown in 1000 theaters nationwide,” should be classified in a movie title category because “theaters” is in the set of words that tend to correlate to movies and is within 5 or fewer words of entity candidate ABC.
Other conclusions may also be drawn based on surrounding words or phrases including ages, dates of movies or songs, genre of a movie or book, marital status and the like. In another example, co-occurrences may be evaluated to determine a probability that a candidate entity refers to a known entity. Co-occurrences refer generally to the occurrence of two or more entities in the same content item. Some co-occurrences are more likely or probable than others due to various relationships between the entities or a frequency or rate at which the two entities appear together in content items. For example, a husband and wife are more likely to appear in a content item than two unrelated entities. Similarly, the director of a movie and the movie are likely to be mentioned in the same content item than the director and a movie that he or she did not direct. In one or more embodiments, a statistical classifier such as a decision tree may be used to classify candidate entities into the various categories. Decision trees and decision tree learning are described in further detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree_learning. The decision tree classification may further be AdaBoosted (i.e., supplemented with Adaptive Boosting). Adaptive boosting is described in further detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdaBoost.
FIG. 4 illustrates an example of co-occurrence in an article. Article 400 refers to a person named Bridget 403 as well as a movie 405 named “Movie 123.” When attempting to tag or identify Bridget 403, the system may determine that more than one Bridget exists in a database of known entities. Accordingly, the system may evaluate the co-occurrence between Bridget 403 and “Movie 123” 405 to determine whether Bridget 403 references a first known Bridget (e.g., Bridget Smith) or a second known Bridget (e.g., Bridget Jones). Thus, if the actress Bridget Smith is known to star in the movie “Movie 123,” then the Bridget referred to in article 400 is likely Bridget Smith and not Bridget Jones.
Referring again to FIG. 3, preceding decisions may also affect how a candidate entity is categorized. In one example, if a preceding reference to “Santa Claus” is identified as matching to Santa Claus, any subsequent references to “Santa” might similarly be categorized as a reference to Santa Claus, rather than, e.g., the city of Santa Ana, Calif. Such preceding decisions may be used as a factor based on the assumption that it is more likely or certain within a specified confidence that the subsequent reference to Santa corresponds to the same Santa that was previously mentioned in the same document or other content item rather than a different Santa.
Based on the first classification analysis, candidate entities may be categorized with known entities based on a probability that the candidate entity matches a specified known entity and/or type of entity (e.g., movie title, actor). According to one or more arrangements, a match probability threshold may be set so that a candidate entity might only be categorized with a known entity or type of entity if the match probability meets the specified threshold. In some instances, a candidate entity might not be categorized with any known entities or entity category due to an insufficient match probability (i.e., discarded or otherwise categorized as a false positive).
Upon completion of the first classification process, the system may perform a second classification analysis to re-sort or re-classify the candidate entities in step 315 based on the information considered in the first classification as well as new information. The second classification analysis allows the classification system to re-evaluate categorizations of candidate entities from the first classification process by analyzing not only the decisions made for preceding entity candidates, but also decisions made for following entity candidates. Such decisions might not be (and generally are not) available during the first classification process since no analysis or decisions may have been made yet for following candidate entities. Thus, having the benefit of the first classification analysis, not only may the second classification process take into account decisions made for preceding candidate entities in the first process and the second process, but also candidate entities that appear later in the content item. In some instances, the second classification analysis may re-categorize candidate entities based on the additional information available to the classification engine. Additionally or alternatively, an entity that was not initially categorized in the first classification analysis may be categorized with a known entity during the second pass based on the additional information available in the second classification process.
By way of example, consider the following passage that may be analyzed through the process of FIG. 3.
“DirectorOne has produced a brand new movie called ‘Jingle Bell Rock’ about aliens that invade Earth during Christmas. In the movie, the aliens decide that Christmas should not be a time of celebration and takes Santa Claus hostage.”
During a first analysis, the first instance of the word “aliens” may be categorized or classified as a candidate entity for a movie title (i.e., for a movie “Aliens”) based on a co-occurrence with DirectorOne who directed the movie “Aliens.” The decision that the first instance of aliens should be classified as potentially matching the movie “Aliens” may be based on previous decisions such as a determination that DirectorOne corresponds to the same DirectorOne that directed “Aliens.” In a second pass or analysis, however, the first instance of aliens may be discarded as a potential match with “Aliens” and as a candidate entity based on additional information. The additional information may include a decision made regarding the second instance of aliens in the passage. For example, because the second instance of aliens is preceded by the word “the” and followed by a verb, a decision may be made that the second instance of aliens is not a reference to the movie “Aliens” and is not a candidate entity. Based on the decision relating to the second instance of aliens, a classification system may determine during the second analysis that the first instance of aliens also does not correspond to a candidate entity, thereby overriding or changing the previous decision or classification that was made based on co-occurrence with DirectorOne in the first classification process.
Once candidate entities have been sorted, ambiguities may be resolved. For example, if a candidate entity is classified as being a match with more than one known entity, a disambiguation process may used to resolve which of the multiple known entities the candidate entity is associated with or a reference to. FIG. 5 illustrates an example method for disambiguating and tagging candidate entities. Disambiguation 599 may include multiple processes such as steps 500-515. In step 500, for example, a reference chain may be created for each known entity with which a candidate entity has been identified as a likely match. The reference chain(s) may be created based on the classifications and decisions made by the classification processes (e.g., classification processes of FIG. 3). Reference chains refer generally to a sequence or list of candidate entities that have been classified as being a match with the known entity. The reference chain for a known entity may be formed according to the order in which the candidate entities appear in the content item (e.g., reading order).
FIG. 6A illustrates example reference chains for article 200 of FIG. 2 created after the classification of candidate entities 205. Reference chain 601 corresponds to a known entity “Bridget Jones” having an assigned database identifier of 101. Potential matches to Bridget Jones are shown as parts of a chain connected to reference chain 601. For example, candidate entity Bridget J. 603, candidate entity B. Jones 605 and candidate entity Bridget 606 are all included in reference chain 601. In another example, reference chain 607 corresponding to known entity “Movie 123” having an assigned database identifier of 304 may include candidate entities 609 and 611. In yet another example, reference chain 613 may correspond to known entity “Brandon Jones.” In the illustrated scenario, candidate entity B. Jones 605 may be a member of both chains 601 and 613. Accordingly, disambiguation of candidate entity B. Jones 605 (i.e., determining whether B. Jones 605 corresponds to Bridget Jones or Brandon Jones) may be necessary.
Referring again to FIG. 5, conflicts among reference chains may be identified in step 505. For example, reference chains may be compared with one another to determine whether common members (i.e., candidate entities) exist between the reference chains. In step 510, the conflicting reference chains may be ranked or sorted according to a level of reliability or probability based on a specified criterion. Reliability may be measured or determined based on a variety of criteria including a confidence of the matching or classification process in tagging or categorizing, respectively, a candidate entity as a potential match with each known entity, co-occurrences between the conflicted candidate entity and unconflicted entities and a length of each reference chain. The length of a reference chain may be indicative of reliability under the hypothesis that a candidate entity is more likely to match a first known entity that is mentioned more in the content item than a second known entity than the second known entity. In step 515, the lowest ranking reference chain in the sorted list may be removed as a match with the conflicted candidate entity. For example, the candidate entity may be removed from the reference chain. In step 520, the disambiguation system may determine if more than one reference chain remains in the set of conflicted reference chains for a candidate entity. If so, the process may revert to step 510.
In one example of the disambiguation process, reference chains 601 and 613 of FIG. 6A may be considered conflicting reference chains because they both include candidate entity B. Jones 605. Accordingly, reference chains 601 and 613 may be ranked based on a specified criterion such as a length of the reference chains. Since reference chain 601 is longer (includes more candidate entities), chain 601 may be ranked higher than chain 613. Once ranked, the candidate entity at issue may be removed from the lowest (or lower in this instance) ranked chain 613, thereby (in this example) resolving the conflict. FIG. 6B illustrates reference chain 613 once candidate entity 605 has been removed. The conflict is resolved since candidate entity 605 (i.e., B. Jones) is now a match with only one known entity (i.e., Bridget Jones 601).
In one or more arrangements, conflicted reference chains may be initially ranked or sorted based on a first criterion of highest importance (e.g., matching/classification confidence). Once sorted, the lowest ranking conflicted reference chain may be removed from consideration. Next, the remaining reference chains may be ranked or sorted based on a second criterion of second highest importance (e.g., co-occurrences). Again, the lowest ranking conflicted reference chain (based on the second criterion) may be removed. The process may continue until a single reference chain remains.
In one or more alternative embodiments, criteria may be used in the sorting or ranking process in an additive manner. Stated differently, the first sorting process may use only the first criterion. The second sorting process, however, may use the first criterion and the second criterion. The third sorting process may subsequently use the first criterion, the second criterion and a third criterion. Alternatively, each sorting step might only consider a single criterion.
Referring again to FIG. 5, in step 525, each rejected or discarded candidate entity (i.e. candidates entities categorized as false positives) may optionally be added to a reference chain corresponding to an entity for which the rejected candidate entity was considered a false positive. Those candidate entities categorized as false positives for entities for which no reference chain was created for the content item may be left as false positives. Such a process may be used with the hypothesis that a given expression will be used unambiguously within a given content item and thus, such discarded or rejected candidate entities may be false negatives. For example, because the content for evaluating candidate entities that appear early in a document or other content item tends to be relatively impoverished due to lack of previous information or decision making, these candidate entities might often be discarded as false positives even though they are true entity candidates. Accordingly, the process of adding such false negatives back into the processing stream allows for these candidate entities to be properly identified and tagged. In step 530, for each reference chain, a database identifier of the corresponding known entity is associated with each member candidate entity of that reference chain (i.e., each candidate entity is tagged).
As noted herein, classification, disambiguation and tagging may involve the analysis and consideration of multiple factors and attributes. For example, the spelling, capitalization and surrounding symbols, words and phrases of a candidate entity may be taken into account when evaluating potential matches to known entities. In one or more configurations, these factors and attributes may include prior knowledge or processing such as manual tagging or identification of attributes, tagged data processing and dictionary processing. Manual tagging and identification, for example, may involve human tagging of entities in content items and the creation of entity dictionaries. Entity dictionaries may include thousands of entities with each entity being identified by a canonical name, a database identifier and an entity rank (i.e., a metric allowing entities to be sorted by intrinsic likely interest or relevance). Tagged data processing, on the other hand, may be an automatic process, a manual process or a combination thereof that evaluates tagged data in content items to identify co-occurrences, frequency of co-occurrences and probabilities a word, phrase, character or entity existing relative to another word, phrase, character or entity.
According to one or more aspects, a priori (i.e., prior) knowledge may be collected and used to create or add to a statistical model such as a trigram language model configured to predict the likelihood that entities are mentioned in a content item. A tri-gram language model is a particular instance of an n-gram language model. An n-gram is a sequence of n words. To create such a language model, language is divided into a set of all possible n-grams. In one or more arrangements, a representative corpus of documents is selected and digested into the n-grams contained in these documents. For each n-gram, the language model would then count a number of occurrences found and divide by all the n-grams found. This results in the probability of that particular n-gram in the corpus and an estimate of its probability in the language generally; the more representative the corpus, the better the estimate. If a new sequence of words is identified, the new sequence of words may be divided up into n-grams in similar fashion. Each n-gram may then be looked-up in the table of probabilities composed earlier from dividing up the corpus. These probabilities may then be multiplied together to determine the probability of the newly identified sequence. One purpose of an n-gram language model is to identify improbable sequences corresponding to names. For example, the musician known as Prince is referred to without the article “the,” but ordinary princes get this article. Since seeing the word prince without a preceding article (e.g., “the”) is improbable, this may be an indication that the reference is to the musician Prince and not a prince.
Dictionary processing may include a variety of processes including segregating entity names that are numbers or single common words (e.g., Predator, Clerks, Prince), determining variants of entity names (e.g., abbreviations, nicknames, acronyms, omitting or using middle names, initials or epithets), forming lists for each known entity by mapping names and/or variants with a corresponding canonical name, database identifier and/or entity rank, generating acyclic finite state automata (e.g., TRIE (retrieval) regular expressions) which will match all and only those expressions in a list and importing of external entity data. External entity data may include co-occurrence information of entities tagged by an external site such as IMDB.COM and the like. Entity names that are numbers or single common words may be segregated due to the likelihood of these entity names being false positives. By segregating such entity names, a separate statistical model may be used to evaluate whether they are false positives or true entity candidates. The separate statistical model may, in one or more instances, have a higher threshold for classification as a true entity candidate than a statistical model used for other entity names. Acyclic deterministic finite state automata may be used to more efficiently identify matches in entity names. For example, consider a database of a million names and a process of finding a match with the entity candidate “Terry.” Finite state automata allows for the grouping of the one million names into finer and finer groups of a decision tree such that the entity candidate does not need to be compared to each of the one million names to find a match. Information relating to acyclic, deterministic FSAs may be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acyclic_deterministic_finite_automaton. The pre-processed information may be used by the matching process, the classification process and/or the disambiguation process. For example, name variants and variant lists may be used to identify candidate entities in a content item. In another example, the external entity data and language models may be used in classifying the candidate entities.
A feature detector may be used to determine various attributes of an entity or a tagged content item for matching and classification purposes. In one or more configurations, a priori data may be used to determine how the features interact and what patterns are significant. For example, if an entity is spelled in all capital letters, such an attribute may be used as a discriminating feature when evaluating potentially matching candidate entities. Thus, a candidate entity that is appears as “marvel” might not be considered a high confidence match with known entity MARVEL due to the difference in capitalization despite the same spelling. Attributes or features that are evaluated may include colons, commas, capitalization, exact matches and the like. In another example, the movie “MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE” includes a colon between the two words. Thus, if the tagging system identifies a candidate entity “MISSION IMPOSSIBLE,” the tagging system might not consider the candidate entity a strong match because the candidate entity lacks a colon even though the candidate entity is spelled and capitalized in the same manner.
The following list provides an example list of feature detectors that may be used to determine attributes of an entity or content item:
ColonFeature: This feature has the value 1 if the chunk of text in question contains a colon; 0 otherwise.
CommaParentheticalFeature: Marks whether the chunk in question is contained in a comma or dash delimited parenthetical expression. For example, “The director, George Lucas, . . . .”
CommonMutualInformationFeature: Looks for words that disproportionately indicate one type—celebrity, movie, TV show—or another before or after chunk. Mutual information generally refers to the extent to which one event predicts another. Smoke and fire have high mutual information, for example. During the training stage, a process calculates the mutual information between words in a small window surrounding a chunk of known type and the type of that chunk. It then ranks these and selects those most predictive of the type. When a new chunk is considered, the mutual information within this window for each type is added up and provided as a feature value. If something is ambiguous between a TV show title and a movie title, for instance, this can provide evidence for disambiguation.
DefiniteFeature: Whether the chunk begins with ‘the’. Among other things this indicates that the chunk itself is a noun phrase, or at least the beginning of one. This is weak evidence in favor of the chunk indicating a title, however, it allows the classifiers to model the properties of such titles separately.
DigitFeature: Whether the chunk contains a digit. Chunks containing digits might often be false positives.
ExactMatchFeature: Whether the chunk in question follows a tagging of the exact same sequence. Whatever evidence led the classifiers to tag the earlier chunk then weighs in favor of tagging this chunk.
FirstSentenceFeature: Has the value 1 for any chunk in the first sentence. The classifiers can use this feature to construct a separate statistical model for expressions in the first sentence, which tend to behave differently from other sentences in the document.
IdCountFeature: Assigns to its feature the ratio of the number of counts of a chunk's most common id to the number of words in the text.
InitialCapsFeature: Whether the chunk is capitalized.
InternalPunctuationFeature: Whether there are punctuation marks among the words of the chunk. This is often counter evidence against the chunk being a desirable referring expression.
ListPatternFeature: Whether this chunk appears to occur in the context of a list—e.g., “Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Scarlett Johansson, Matthew Yglesias, Zbigniew Brzezinski.” List contexts are problematic because they separate interior chunks from the ordinary evidence used to recognize expressions of particular types. This feature allows the classifiers to model this sort of chunk separately.
MatchByTypeFeature: Counts number of times the chunk in question was assigned different types by the first-pass classifier. The chunk itself is excluded so as not to recycle the first classification directly. This is an insoluble ambiguity detector, allowing the classifiers to give up rather than make an incorrect decision.
OuterInFeature: Whether the chunk is preceded by ‘in’, a preposition that often appears before titles.
OuterTheFeature: Whether the chunk is preceded by ‘the’. Among other things this indicates that the chunk itself is not a complete noun phrase, as that would include the ‘the’. This then is counter evidence against the chunk being a referring expression of interest.
ParenthesesFeature: Whether the chunk occurs inside parentheses. This commonly occurs with actor names in contexts such as “the uncle (Zach Braf) then . . . .”
PossessedFeature: Whether the chunk is the object of possession; for example “boat” in “John's boat”. Person names seldom occur in this context.
PossessiveFeature: Whether the chunk is marked as the possessor of some other thing., e.g., “John” in “John's boat”. This tends to correlate with personhood.
ProperMutualInformationFeature: Like the common mutual information feature but focuses on phrases that do not occur in a list of common English words. This would include words such as “L.A.”, “Hollywood”, “Academy Awards”, “New York”, and so on.
QuoteFeature: Whether the chunk occurs inside quotes, as is often the case with titles.
RankFeature: Assigns each type the maximum “entity rank” of any id appropriate to that type. Entity rank is a value that seeks to estimate the frame or public interest in an entity. Writers are less likely to use high rank names ambiguously.
RatioFeature: Ratio of common words to words in a chunk. If the chunk is mostly common words it is more likely to be a false positive.
SentenceXFeature: Whether it appears that the chunk in question occurs at the beginning of a sentence. This is a highly topical position; more importantly, topical entities are likely to be mentioned there.
SingleWordFeature: Whether the chunk contains a single word. This feature allows the classifiers to model such chunks separately.
SuperMatchPerTypeFeature: Counts the types of previous super matches of the chunk in question. A super match is a tagged chunk that contains the chunk in question as a substring. This feature is used to push all likely references to the same entity to a common type. This feature detector generally runs in the second pass (i.e., the second classification process).
SurroundingCapsFeature: Whether the words around the chunk have initial capitalization. This is an indication that the tagger picked a piece of a large expression—“the King” in “Return of the King”, for example.
TotalPerTypeFeature: Measures the frequency of each tag type normalized by the number of tags. The type of the current chunk, if any, is ignored. This is an ambiguity detector. It can help the classifiers determine when they should give up and ignore the chunk.
TypeDistanceBackFeature: Number of words back from this chunk to other tagged chunks of particular types. This helps, for example, in determining that an expression refers to a TV show rather than a movie of this same name when the chunk appears amid other chunks tagged as TV shows.
TypeDistanceForwardFeature: Like the previous feature (i.e., TypeDistanceBackFeature) but looking in the opposite direction.
UnbalancedQuoteFeature: Whether the chunk is bracketed on only one side by a quote character. This is an indication that it is part of a larger title.
UncapitalizedFeature: Whether there is some word in the chunk that does not have initial capitalization. Again this may indicate a false tagging.
WhoFeature: Whether the chunk is followed by the word ‘who’, ‘whom’, or ‘whose, all indications that it refers to a person.
WordCountFeature: Counts the words in the chunk. The classifier may choose to model chunks of different lengths differently.
XDigitFeature: Whether the chunk is followed by a digit.
FIG. 7 illustrates a block diagram of a system configured to classify, disambiguate and tag potential entity references in a content item. Tagging system 700 may include a multiple processing modules including an identification module 703, classification module 705, reference chainer 707, conflict resolution module 709 and gap filler 711. Additionally, database 701 may be configured to store a variety of information such as application data, user preference information, a priori knowledge, entity identifiers, content items, application programming and the like. One or more of modules 703, 705, 707 and 709 may used the data stored in database 701 in various processes.
Identification module 703 may be configured to identify candidate entities in a content item using various methods including those described previously. For example, raw text may be fed into the identification module 703 so that candidate entities may be identified therefrom. The candidate entities may then be fed into a classification module 705 configured to classify the candidate entities according to likely matches with types of entities. Classification module 705 may use various classification rules and criteria including those described previously. Classification module 705 may process the candidate entities two or more times as discussed herein. The resulting categorizations may then be submitted to a reference chainer 707 configured to form reference chains based on the categorizations. Once chained, conflict resolution module 709 may resolve any conflicts between reference chains using a hierarchy of criteria. The unconflicted reference chains may then be processed by a gap filler 711 that is configured to add in any false negatives that were identified in the previous processes. The identified candidate entities in a content item may then be tagged based on the finalized reference chains.
Tagging system 700 may include one or more processors, random access memory (RAM) modules or read-only memory (ROM) modules and may comprise a single apparatus or multiple apparatuses. For example, tagging system 700 may be a distributed system that spans multiple networked or otherwise connected devices. The components and modules of system 700 may comprise hardware, software, firmware or any combinations thereof.
FIG. 9 illustrates an example method by which tagged entities may be converted to links that allow a user to view other information associated with the tagged entities. In step 900, for example, a tagged entity may be identified from a tagged content item. The identification may be performed based on database identifiers associated with the tagged entities. In step 905, other information associated with the entity corresponding to the database identifier may be retrieved from a content information database. The information may include links, articles, videos, music and the like. In step 910, a listing (e.g., list 805 of FIG. 8) may be created, for example, as a webpage of the additional information associated with the entity. In step 915, the tagged entity in the content item may be replaced or modified to include a link to the additional information.
US4227177 27. Apr. 1978 7. Okt. 1980 Dialog Systems, Inc. Continuous speech recognition method
US5594897 1. Sept. 1993 14. Jan. 1997 Gwg Associates Method for retrieving high relevance, high quality objects from an overall source
US5682326 3. Apr. 1995 28. Okt. 1997 Radius Inc. Desktop digital video processing system
US5737495 29. Sept. 1995 7. Apr. 1998 Intel Corporation Method and apparatus for managing multimedia data files in a computer network by streaming data files into separate streams based on file attributes
US5799315 7. Juli 1995 25. Aug. 1998 Sun Microsystems, Inc. Method and apparatus for event-tagging data files automatically correlated with a time of occurence in a computer system
US5845279 27. Juni 1997 1. Dez. 1998 Lucent Technologies Inc. Scheduling resources for continuous media databases
US5857200 21. Febr. 1996 5. Jan. 1999 Fujitsu Limited Data retrieving apparatus used in a multimedia system
US5928330 6. Sept. 1996 27. Juli 1999 Motorola, Inc. System, device, and method for streaming a multimedia file
US5956729 6. Sept. 1996 21. Sept. 1999 Motorola, Inc. Multimedia file, supporting multiple instances of media types, and method for forming same
US6052657 25. Nov. 1997 18. Apr. 2000 Dragon Systems, Inc. Text segmentation and identification of topic using language models
US6055543 21. Nov. 1997 25. Apr. 2000 Verano File wrapper containing cataloging information for content searching across multiple platforms
US6058392 12. Mai 1998 2. Mai 2000 Wesley C. Sampson Revocable Trust Method for the organizational indexing, storage, and retrieval of data according to data pattern signatures
US6188976 23. Okt. 1998 13. Febr. 2001 International Business Machines Corporation Apparatus and method for building domain-specific language models
US6320588 18. Apr. 1997 20. Nov. 2001 Compaq Computer Corporation Audio/video storage and retrieval for multimedia workstations
US6366296 11. Sept. 1998 2. Apr. 2002 Xerox Corporation Media browser using multimodal analysis
US6415434 18. Juni 1999 2. Juli 2002 Hewlett-Packard Company Apparatus and method for a runtime method overloading resolver
US6545209 * 5. Juli 2001 8. Apr. 2003 Microsoft Corporation Music content characteristic identification and matching
US6792426 8. Jan. 2002 14. Sept. 2004 International Business Machines Corporation Generic servlet for browsing EJB entity beans
US6901364 13. Sept. 2001 31. Mai 2005 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Focused language models for improved speech input of structured documents
US6937766 13. Apr. 2000 30. Aug. 2005 MATE—Media Access Technologies Ltd. Method of indexing and searching images of text in video
US6970639 7. Sept. 2000 29. Nov. 2005 Sony United Kingdom Limited System and method for editing source content to produce an edited content sequence
US7177861 14. Nov. 2003 13. Febr. 2007 Intel Corporation Method and system for detecting semantic events
US7206303 29. Jan. 2002 17. Apr. 2007 Autonomy Systems Limited Time ordered indexing of an information stream
US7272558 23. März 2007 18. Sept. 2007 Coveo Solutions Inc. Speech recognition training method for audio and video file indexing on a search engine
US7376642 30. März 2004 20. Mai 2008 Microsoft Corporation Integrated full text search system and method
US7472137 15. Juli 2005 30. Dez. 2008 International Business Machines Corporation Data query and location through a central ontology model
US7548934 30. März 2006 16. Juni 2009 Microsoft Corporation Auto playlist generator
US7584102 15. Nov. 2002 1. Sept. 2009 Scansoft, Inc. Language model for use in speech recognition
US7739286 17. März 2006 15. Juni 2010 University Of Southern California Topic specific language models built from large numbers of documents
US7788266 * 27. Sept. 2005 31. Aug. 2010 Veveo, Inc. Method and system for processing ambiguous, multi-term search queries
US7921116 16. Juni 2006 5. Apr. 2011 Microsoft Corporation Highly meaningful multimedia metadata creation and associations
US7925506 5. Okt. 2004 12. Apr. 2011 Inago Corporation Speech recognition accuracy via concept to keyword mapping
US7958119 * 4. Febr. 2008 7. Juni 2011 Sony Deutschland Gmbh Method for content recommendation
US8041566 12. Nov. 2004 18. Okt. 2011 Nuance Communications Austria Gmbh Topic specific models for text formatting and speech recognition
US8078467 8. März 2007 13. Dez. 2011 Nec (China) Co., Ltd. Device and method for language model switching and adaptation
US8117206 7. Jan. 2009 14. Febr. 2012 Streamsage, Inc. Method and system for indexing and searching timed media information based upon relevance intervals
US8265933 22. Dez. 2005 11. Sept. 2012 Nuance Communications, Inc. Speech recognition system for providing voice recognition services using a conversational language model
US20020035573 14. Sept. 2001 21. März 2002 Black Peter M. Metatag-based datamining
US20020143774 13. Nov. 2001 3. Okt. 2002 Vandersluis Kirstan Anderson Dynamic, hierarchical data exchange system
US20020194181 25. Juli 2001 19. Dez. 2002 Wachtel David C. Method and apparatus for intelligent data assimilation
US20030014758 22. Jan. 2002 16. Jan. 2003 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. System and method for providing summary video information of video data
US20030050778 13. Sept. 2001 13. März 2003 Patrick Nguyen Focused language models for improved speech input of structured documents
US20030061028 21. Sept. 2001 27. März 2003 Knumi Inc. Tool for automatically mapping multimedia annotations to ontologies
US20030163443 26. Febr. 2002 28. Aug. 2003 Sony Corporation System and method for effectively implementing a personal channel for interactive television
US20030163815 28. Dez. 2001 28. Aug. 2003 Lee Begeja Method and system for personalized multimedia delivery service
US20040215634 5. Dez. 2003 28. Okt. 2004 Attensity Corporation Methods and products for merging codes and notes into an integrated relational database
US20040254795 22. Juli 2002 16. Dez. 2004 Atsushi Fujii Speech input search system
US20050044105 19. Aug. 2003 24. Febr. 2005 Kelly Terrell System and method for delivery of content-specific video clips
US20050097138 * 19. Nov. 2004 5. Mai 2005 Microsoft Corporation System and methods for the automatic transmission of new, high affinity media
US20050114130 9. Juli 2004 26. Mai 2005 Nec Laboratories America, Inc. Systems and methods for improving feature ranking using phrasal compensation and acronym detection
US20050152362 30. Dez. 2004 14. Juli 2005 Yi-Chieh Wu Data classification management system and method thereof
US20050193005 13. Febr. 2004 1. Sept. 2005 Microsoft Corporation User-defined indexing of multimedia content
US20050222975 30. März 2004 6. Okt. 2005 Nayak Tapas K Integrated full text search system and method
US20060037046 13. Aug. 2004 16. Febr. 2006 Microsoft Corporation Aligning video data to create a comprehensive program guide
US20060074671 5. Okt. 2004 6. Apr. 2006 Gary Farmaner System and methods for improving accuracy of speech recognition
US20060100898 10. Nov. 2005 11. Mai 2006 Pearce Jonathan P Method for booking and scheduling actors for projects using a computer network
US20060112097 24. Nov. 2004 25. Mai 2006 Callaghan Mark D Encoding data to be sorted
US20060156399 30. Dez. 2004 13. Juli 2006 Parmar Pankaj N System and method for implementing network security using a sequestered partition
US20060161546 18. Jan. 2005 20. Juli 2006 Callaghan Mark D Method for sorting data
US20060212288 17. März 2006 21. Sept. 2006 Abhinav Sethy Topic specific language models built from large numbers of documents
US20060253780 10. Juli 2006 9. Nov. 2006 Mastushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. Data processing device and method for selecting media segments on the basis of a score
US20060256739 18. Febr. 2006 16. Nov. 2006 Kenneth Seier Flexible multi-media data management
US20070050343 23. Aug. 2006 1. März 2007 Infosys Technologies Ltd. Semantic-based query techniques for source code
US20070050366 16. Dez. 2005 1. März 2007 Harris Corporation System, program product, and methods to enhance media content management
US20070067285 22. Sept. 2005 22. März 2007 Matthias Blume Method and apparatus for automatic entity disambiguation
US20070083374 7. Okt. 2005 12. Apr. 2007 International Business Machines Corporation Voice language model adjustment based on user affinity
US20070208567 1. März 2006 6. Sept. 2007 At&T Corp. Error Correction In Automatic Speech Recognition Transcripts
US20070211762 1. März 2007 13. Sept. 2007 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for integrating content and services among multiple networks
US20070214123 1. März 2007 13. Sept. 2007 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing a user interface application and presenting information thereon
US20070214488 1. März 2007 13. Sept. 2007 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for managing information on a video recording device
US20070233487 3. Apr. 2006 4. Okt. 2007 Cohen Michael H Automatic language model update
US20070239707 30. März 2007 11. Okt. 2007 Collins John B Method of searching text to find relevant content
US20070260700 4. Mai 2006 8. Nov. 2007 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing persistent media across web pages using only browser plug-ins
US20080046929 1. Aug. 2006 21. Febr. 2008 Microsoft Corporation Media content catalog service
US20080091633 8. Aug. 2007 17. Apr. 2008 Microsoft Corporation Domain knowledge-assisted information processing
US20080133504 4. Dez. 2006 5. Juni 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and apparatus for contextual search and query refinement on consumer electronics devices
US20080163328 29. Dez. 2006 3. Juli 2008 Verizon Services Organization Inc. Method and system for providing attribute browsing of video assets
US20080183681 26. März 2008 31. Juli 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for facilitating information searching on electronic devices
US20080183698 4. Jan. 2008 31. Juli 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for facilitating information searching on electronic devices
US20080189110 6. Febr. 2007 7. Aug. 2008 Tom Freeman System and method for selecting and presenting advertisements based on natural language processing of voice-based input
US20080204595 26. Juni 2007 28. Aug. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for extracting relevant information from content metadata
US20080208796 5. Juli 2007 28. Aug. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing sponsored information on electronic devices
US20080208839 26. Juni 2007 28. Aug. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing information using a supplementary device
US20080208864 26. Febr. 2007 28. Aug. 2008 Microsoft Corporation Automatic disambiguation based on a reference resource
US20080221989 4. Jan. 2008 11. Sept. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing sponsored content on an electronic device
US20080222106 9. März 2007 11. Sept. 2008 Microsoft Corporation Media content search results ranked by popularity
US20080222142 * 6. März 2008 11. Sept. 2008 Utopio, Inc. Context based data searching
US20080235209 20. März 2007 25. Sept. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and apparatus for search result snippet analysis for query expansion and result filtering
US20080235393 21. März 2007 25. Sept. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Framework for corrrelating content on a local network with information on an external network
US20080250010 5. Apr. 2007 9. Okt. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for determining and pre-processing potential user queries related to content in a network
US20080256097 16. Apr. 2007 16. Okt. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for location identification
US20080266449 25. Apr. 2007 30. Okt. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing access to information of potential interest to a user
US20080281801 5. Mai 2008 13. Nov. 2008 Applied Technical Systems, Inc. Database system and related method
US20080288641 15. Mai 2007 20. Nov. 2008 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for providing relevant information to a user of a device in a local network
US20090006315 29. Juni 2007 1. Jan. 2009 Sougata Mukherjea Structured method for schema matching using multiple levels of ontologies
US20090006391 * 27. Juni 2007 1. Jan. 2009 T Reghu Ram Automatic categorization of document through tagging
US20090013002 * 4. Febr. 2008 8. Jan. 2009 Sony Deutschland Gmbh Method for content recommendation
US20090025054 17. Juli 2007 22. Jan. 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Method and system for access to content in a content space
US20090083257 19. März 2008 26. März 2009 Pluggd, Inc Method and subsystem for information acquisition and aggregation to facilitate ontology and language-model generation within a content-search-service system
US20090094113 8. Sept. 2008 9. Apr. 2009 Digitalsmiths Corporation Systems and Methods For Using Video Metadata to Associate Advertisements Therewith
US20090123021 26. Jan. 2007 14. Mai 2009 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. System, method, and medium indexing photos semantically
US20090144260 30. Nov. 2007 4. Juni 2009 Yahoo! Inc. Enabling searching on abbreviated search terms via messaging
US20090204599 13. Febr. 2008 13. Aug. 2009 Microsoft Corporation Using related users data to enhance web search
US20090205018 6. Febr. 2009 13. Aug. 2009 Ferraiolo David F Method and system for the specification and enforcement of arbitrary attribute-based access control policies
US20090240650 5. Juni 2009 24. Sept. 2009 Wang Fangshan System and method for managing media contents
US20090240674 17. März 2009 24. Sept. 2009 Tom Wilde Search Engine Optimization
US20090271195 6. Juli 2007 29. Okt. 2009 Nec Corporation Speech recognition apparatus, speech recognition method, and speech recognition program
US20090282069 20. Juli 2009 12. Nov. 2009 Oracle International Corporation Encoding data to be sorted
US20090326947 26. Juni 2009 31. Dez. 2009 James Arnold System and method for spoken topic or criterion recognition in digital media and contextual advertising
US20100042602 15. Aug. 2008 18. Febr. 2010 Smyros Athena A Systems and methods for indexing information for a search engine
US20100070507 * 16. März 2009 18. März 2010 Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba Hybrid content recommending server, system, and method
US20100138653 25. Nov. 2009 3. Juni 2010 Elliot Spencer Method and system for searching for, and collecting, electronically-stored information
US20100250598 * 30. März 2009 30. Sept. 2010 Falk Brauer Graph based re-composition of document fragments for name entity recognition under exploitation of enterprise databases
US20110077943 18. Juni 2007 31. März 2011 Nec Corporation System for generating language model, method of generating language model, and program for language model generation
US20110125728 31. Jan. 2011 26. Mai 2011 Smyros Athena A Systems and Methods for Indexing Information for a Search Engine
US20110191099 8. März 2011 4. Aug. 2011 Inago Corporation System and Methods for Improving Accuracy of Speech Recognition
US20120150636 13. Febr. 2012 14. Juni 2012 Voicebox Technologies, Inc. System and method for delivering targeted advertisements and tracking advertisement interactions in voice recognition contexts
CA2685833A1 12. Nov. 2009 20. Mai 2010 Comcast Cable Communications, Llc Method and apparatus for delivering video and video-related content at sub-asset level
EP1241587A1 12. März 2001 18. Sept. 2002 THOMSON multimedia Method for processing content data
EP1501305A1 23. Sept. 1997 26. Jan. 2005 Thomson Inc. Method for collating program guide information from a plurality of sources with equivalence mapping
GB2448874A Titel nicht verfügbar
GB2448875A Titel nicht verfügbar
WO1999050830A1 9. Febr. 1999 7. Okt. 1999 Microsoft Corporation Information retrieval and speech recognition based on language models
WO2002005135A2 29. Juni 2001 17. Jan. 2002 Streamsage, Inc. Method and system for indexing and searching timed media information based upon relevance intervals
WO2006099621A2 17. März 2006 21. Sept. 2006 University Of Southern California Topic specific language models built from large numbers of documents
WO2007115224A2 30. März 2007 11. Okt. 2007 Sri International Method and apparatus for annotating media streams
WO2008053132A1 12. Juni 2007 8. Mai 2008 Nds Limited Program guide search
WO2009052277A1 16. Okt. 2008 23. Apr. 2009 Evri, Inc. Nlp-based entity recognition and disambiguation
1 "Experiments in Spoken Document Retrieval at CMU", M.A. Siegler, M.J. Wittbrock, S.T. Slattery, K. Seymore, R.E. Jones, and A.G. Hauptmann, School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, Justsystem Pittsburgh Research Center, 4616 Henry Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, date unknown but prior to application filing date.
2 "Towards a Multimedia World-Wide Web Information retrieval engines", Sougata Mukherjea, Kyoji Hirata, and Yoshinori Hara Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 29 (1997) 1181-1191.
3 Boulgouris N. V. et al., "Real-Time Compressed-Domain Spatiotemporal Segmentation and Ontologies for Video Indexing and Retrieval", IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 606-621, May 2004.
4 Changsheng Xu et al., "Using Webcast Text for Semantic Event Detection in Broadcast Sports Video", IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 10, No. 7, pp. 1342-1355, Nov. 2008.
5 Chen, "Extraction of Indicative Summary Sentences from Imaged Documents", IEEE publication, 1997, pp. 227-232.
6 Eberman, et al., "Indexing Multimedia for the Internet", Compaq, Cambridge Research laboratory, Mar. 1999, pp. 1-8 and Abstract.
7 EP Application No. 09 175 979.5-Office Action mailed Apr. 11, 2011.
8 EP Application No. 09 175 979.5—Office Action mailed Apr. 11, 2011.
9 ESR-EP10154725.5-Nov. 2, 2010.
10 ESR—EP10154725.5—Nov. 2, 2010.
11 ESR-EP10155340.2-Nov. 25, 2010.
12 ESR—EP10155340.2—Nov. 25, 2010.
13 ESR-EP10167947.0-Sep. 28, 2010.
14 ESR—EP10167947.0—Sep. 28, 2010.
15 European Application No. 09175979.5-Office Action mailed Mar. 15, 2010.
16 European Application No. 09175979.5—Office Action mailed Mar. 15, 2010.
17 European Patent Application No. 09175979.5-Office Action dated Dec. 13, 2011.
18 European Patent Application No. 09175979.5—Office Action dated Dec. 13, 2011.
19 European Search Report EP 09180762, dated Mar. 22, 2010.
20 European Search Report EP09179987.4, dated Jun. 4, 2010.
21 European Search Report for Application No. 09180776.8, mailed Jun. 7, 2010, 9 pages.
22 European Search Report for application No. 10167947.0, mailed Sep. 28, 2010.
23 Extended European search report for application No. 10162666.1 mailed Aug. 4, 2011.
24 Extended European Search Report-EP 09815446.1-mailing date: May 7, 2013.
25 Extended European Search Report—EP 09815446.1—mailing date: May 7, 2013.
26 First Office Action in EP01950739.1-1244 dated Mar. 27, 2009.
27 Hsin-Min Wang and Berlin Chen, "Content-based Language Models for Spoken Document Retrieval", ACM, 2000, pp. 149-155.
28 International Preliminary Examination Report for PCT/US01/20894, dated Feb. 4, 2002.
29 IPER PCT/US2009/069644-Jun. 29, 2011.
30 IPER PCT/US2009/069644—Jun. 29, 2011.
31 Ishitani, et al., "Logical Structure Analysis of Document Images Based on Emergent Computation", IEEE Publication, pp. 189-192, Jul. 1999.
32 ISR PCT/US2001/020894-Nov. 25, 2003.
33 ISR PCT/US2001/020894—Nov. 25, 2003.
34 ISR PCT/US2009/069644-Mar. 4, 2010.
35 ISR PCT/US2009/069644—Mar. 4, 2010.
36 Kalina Bontcheva et al "Shallow Methods for Named Entity Coreference Resolution", Proc. of Taln 2002, Jan. 1, 2002.
37 Kontothoanassis, Ledonias et al. "Design, Implementation, and Analysis of a Multimedia Indexing and Delivery Server", Technical Report Series, Aug. 1999, Cambridge Research Laboratory.
38 Koskela M. et al., "Measuring Concept Similarities in Multimedia Ontologies: Analysis and Evaluations", IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, vol. 9, No. 5, pp. 912-922, Aug. 2007.
39 Li, Y. et al., "Reliable Video Clock Time Recognition," Pattern Recognition, 2006, 1CPR 1006, 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, 4 pages.
40 Liang Bai et al., "Video Semantic Content Analysis based on Ontology", International Machine Vision and Image Processing Conference, pp. 117-124, Sep. 2007.
41 Marin, Feldman, Ostendort and Gupta, "Filtering Web Text to Match Target Genres", International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2009, Piscataway, NJ, Apr. 19, 2009, pp. 3705-3708.
42 Messer, Alan et al, "SeeNSearch: A Context Directed Search Facilitator for Home Entertainment Devices", Paper, Samsung Information Systems America Inc., San Jose, CA.
43 Partial ESR-EP10155340.2-Jul. 12, 2010.
44 Partial ESR—EP10155340.2—Jul. 12, 2010.
45 Raphael Volz et al., "Towards ontologybased disambiguation of geographical identifiers", Proceedings of the WWW2007 Workship I3: Identity, Identifiers, Identification, Entity-Centric Approaches to Information and Knowledge Management on the Web, Jan. 1, 2007.
46 Salton et al., Computer Evaluation of Indexing and Text Processing Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, vol. 15, No. 1, Jan. 1968, pp. 8-36.
47 Shahraray: "Impact and Applications of Video Content Analysis and Coding in the Internet and Telecommunications", AT&T Labs Research, A Position Statement for Panel 4: Applications the 1998 International workshop on Very Low Bitrate Video Coding, 3 pages, date unknown but prior to application filing date.
48 Smith, J.R. et al. "An Image and Video Search Engine for the World-Wide Web" Storage and Retrieval for Image and Video Databases 5, San Jose, Feb. 13-14, 1997, Proceedings of Spie, Belingham, Spie, US, vol. 3022, Feb. 13, 1997, pp. 84-95.
49 Smith, J.R. et al., "An Image and Video Search Engine for the World-Wide Web" Storage and Retrieval for Image and Video Databases 5, San Jose, Feb. 13-14, 1997, Proceedings of Spie, Belingham, Spie, US, vol. 3022, Feb. 13, 1997, pp. 84-95.
50 Steffen Staab et al., "Semantic Multimedia", Reasoning Web; Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 125-170, Sep. 2008.
51 Wacholder N et al., "Disambiguation of Proper Names in Text", Proceedings of the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Association Computer Linguistics, Morrisontown, NJ, Mar. 1, 2007.
52 Wacholder N. et al., "Disambiguation of Proper Names in Text", Proceedings of the Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, Association Computer Linguistics, Morrisontown, NJ, Mar. 1, 2007.
53 Ying Zhang and Phil Vines. 2004, "Using the web for automated translation extraction in cross-language information retrieval". In Proceedings of the 27th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval (SIGIR '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 162-169.
US9116918 * 14. Nov. 2012 25. Aug. 2015 Google Inc. Methods, systems, and media for interpreting queries
US9196244 * 8. Jan. 2014 24. Nov. 2015 Nuance Communications, Inc. Methodology for enhanced voice search experience
US9465849 30. Juni 2014 11. Okt. 2016 Yahoo! Inc. Systems and methods for content processing
US9558180 * 3. Jan. 2014 31. Jan. 2017 Yahoo! Inc. Systems and methods for quote extraction
US9646050 3. Aug. 2015 9. Mai 2017 Google Inc. Methods, systems, and media for interpreting queries
US9742836 3. Jan. 2014 22. Aug. 2017 Yahoo Holdings, Inc. Systems and methods for content delivery
US20150193440 * 3. Jan. 2014 9. Juli 2015 Yahoo! Inc. Systems and methods for content processing
US20150193495 * 3. Jan. 2014 9. Juli 2015 Yahoo! Inc. Systems and methods for quote extraction
US20150199744 * 12. Jan. 2015 16. Juli 2015 BetterDoctor System for clustering and aggregating data from multiple sources
USD760791 3. Jan. 2014 5. Juli 2016 Yahoo! Inc. Animated graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof
USD760792 3. Jan. 2014 5. Juli 2016 Yahoo! Inc. Animated graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof
USD761833 11. Sept. 2014 19. Juli 2016 Yahoo! Inc. Display screen with graphical user interface of a menu for a news digest
USD775183 3. Jan. 2014 27. Dez. 2016 Yahoo! Inc. Display screen with transitional graphical user interface for a content digest
WO2015103540A1 * 5. Jan. 2015 9. Juli 2015 Yahoo! Inc. Systems and methods for content processing
US-Klassifikation 707/776, 707/913, 707/765, 707/759
Unternehmensklassifikation G06F17/277, G06F17/241, G06F17/2785, G06F17/278, G06F17/2775, G06F17/30598
12. Mai 2009 AS Assignment
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:HOUGHTON, DAVID F.;REEL/FRAME:022672/0456