Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A new tangible user interface for machine learning document review

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes a tool for assisting lawyers and paralegal teams during document review in eDiscovery. The tool combines a machine learning technology (CategoriX) and advanced multi-touch interface capable of not only addressing the usual cost, time and accuracy issues in document review, but also of facilitating the work of the review teams by capitalizing on the intelligence of the reviewers and enabling collaborative work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Article Open access 16 October 2018

Enrico Coiera, Baki Kocaballi, … Liliana Laranjo

Notes

  1. BackStop Software. http://backstopllp.com/software.html.

  2. (YouTube video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNd8SGBtmzI).

  3. Multi-Touch G² Touch Screen. PQ Labs, California. http://multi-touch-screen.net/.

  4. RonCD3 Enron subset by R. Bekkerman (http://www.cs.umass.edu/~ronb/enron_dataset.html).

References

  • Attfield S, De Gabrielle S, Blandford A (2009) The loneliness of the long-distance document reviewer: e-Discovery and cognitive ergonomics. In: DESI III workshop at ICAIL, Barcelona, June 2009

  • Barnett T, Godjevac S, Privault C, Renders JM, Wickstrom R (2009) Machine learning classification for document review. In: DESI III Workshop at ICAIL, Barcelona, June 2009 (http://www.law.pitt.edu/DESI3_Workshop/DESI_III_papers.htm)

  • Baron J, Braman R, Withers K, Allman T, Daley M, Paul G (2007) Best practices commentary on the use of search & information retrieval methods in e-Discovery. The Sedona Conference Journal 8:189–223

  • Belkin NJ (2008) Some(what) grand challenges for information retrieval. ACM SIGIR Forum Arch 42(1):47–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair DC, Maron ME (1985) Evaluation of retrieval effectiveness for a full-text document-retrieval system. Commun ACM 28(3):289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JE, Matus WC (2008) Does your search pass judicial scrutiny? NY Law J. http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/index.jsp

  • Gaussier E, Goutte C, Popat K, Chen F (2002) A hierarchical model for clustering and categorising documents. In: Proceedings of the 24th BCS-IRSG European Colloquium on IR research: advances in information retrieval, 25–27 March 2002, pp 229–247

  • Greenwood A (2007) Attorney at Blah. In: Washington city paper. http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/display.php?id=34054

  • Hearst MA (2009) Search user interfaces. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann T (1999) Probabilistic latent semantic analysis. In: Proceedings of 15th conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann, pp 289–296

  • Kershaw A (2005) Automated document review proves its reliability. Digit Discov e-Evid 5(11). http://www.akershaw.com/iframes/akershaw_publications.html

  • Liddy E (2005) Document retrieval, automatic. In: Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

  • Love N (2006) Automating document review. In: CS224n final project http://nlp.stanford.edu/courses/cs224n/2006/fp/natlove-1-natlove_cs224n_final.pdf

  • McNee MS, Arnette B (2008) Productivity as a metric for visual analytics: reflections on e-discovery. In: Proceedings of the BELIV’08 conference, Florence, Italy

  • Roitblat HL, Kershaw A, Oot P (2010) Document categorization in legal electronic discovery: computer classification vs. manual review. JASIST 61(1):70–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastiani F (2002) Machine learning in automated text categorization. ACM Comput Surv 34(1):1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smart Document Review (2010) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNd8SGBtmzI

  • Tomlinson S, Oard DW, Baron JR, Thompson P (2007) Overview of the TREC 2007 legal track. In: TREC 2007 (http://trec-legal.umiacs.umd.edu/)

  • Turtle H (1994) Natural language vs. Boolean query evaluation: a comparison of retrieval performance. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGIR, Dublin, pp 212–220

  • Victor Stanley Inc. v. Creative Pipe Inc. 2008 WL 2221841 (D.Md. 2008). http://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/victorstanleymomay29-08final.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Xerox Research Center Europe, 6 chemin de Maupertuis, 38240, Meylan, France

    Caroline Privault, Jacki O’Neill, Victor Ciriza & Jean-Michel Renders

Authors
  1. Caroline Privault
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacki O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Victor Ciriza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jean-Michel Renders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caroline Privault.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Privault, C., O’Neill, J., Ciriza, V. et al. A new tangible user interface for machine learning document review. Artif Intell Law 18, 459–479 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9090-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-010-9090-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation