Athena: Mining-Based Interactive Management of Text Databases

  • Rakesh Agrawal
  • Roberto Bayardo
  • Ramakrishnan Srikant
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1777)


We describe Athena: a system for creating, exploiting, and maintaining a hierarchy of textual documents through interactive miningbased operations. Requirements of any such system include speed and minimal end-user effort. Athena satisfies these requirements through linear-time classification and clustering engines which are applied interactively to speed the development of accurate models.

Naive Bayes classifiers are recognized to be among the best for classifying text. We show that our specialization of the Naive Bayes classifier is considerably more accurate (7 to 29% absolute increase in accuracy) than a standard implementation. Our enhancements include using Lidstone’s law of succession instead of Laplace’s law, under-weighting long documents, and over-weighting author and subject.

We also present a new interactive clustering algorithm, C-Evolve, for topic discovery. C-Evolve first finds highly accurate cluster digests (partial clusters), gets user feedback to merge and correct these digests, and then uses the classification algorithm to complete the partitioning of the data. By allowing this interactivity in the clustering process, C-Evolve achieves considerably higher clustering accuracy (10 to 20% absolute increase in our experiments) than the popular K-Means and agglomerative clustering methods.


Concept Drift Agglomerative Cluster True Cluster Classi Cation Text Cluster 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    R. Agrawal, R. Bayardo, and R. Srikant. Athena: Mining-based interactive management of text databases. Research Report RJ 10153, IBM Almaden Research Center, San Jose, CA 95120, July 1999. Available from Scholar
  2. 2.
    C. Apte, F. Damerau, and S.M. Weiss. Automated Learning of Decision Rules for Text Categorization. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Chakrabarti, B. Dom, R. Agrawal, and P. Raghavan. Using Taxonomy, Discriminants, and Signatures for Navigating in Text Databases. In Proc. of the 23rd Int’l Conf. on Very Large Databases, pages 446–455, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.W. Cohen. Learning Rules that Classify E-Mail. In Proc. of the 1996 AAAI Spring Symposium on Machine Learning in Information Access, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D.R. Cutting, K.R. David, J.O. Pedersen, and J.W. Tukey. Scatter/Gather: A Cluster-based Approach to Browsing Large Document Collections. In Proc. of the 15th Intl ACM SIGIR Conf. on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I.J. Good. The Estimation of Probabilities: An Essay on Modern Bayesian Methods. M.I.T. Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Hardy. Correspondence. Insurance Record, 1889.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Kohavi. Scaling Up the Accuracy of Naive-Bayes Classifiers: a Decision-Tree Hybrid. In Proc. of the Second Int’l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Kohavi, B. Becker, and D. Sommerfield. Improving simple bayes. In The 9th European Conference on Machine Learning, Poster Papers, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Kontkanen, P. Myllymaki, T. Silander, and H. Tirri. BAYDA: Software for Bayesian Classification and Feature Selection. In Proc. of the Fourth Int’l Conf. on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    K. Lang. News Weeder: Learning to Filter Net-News. In Proc. of the 12th Int’l Conf. on Machine Learning, pages 331–339, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D.D. Lewis and M. Ringuette. A comparison of two learning algorithms for text categorization. In In Third Annual Symposium on Document Analysis and Information Retrieval, pages 81–92, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Lidstone. Note on the general case of the Bayes-Laplace formula for inductive or a posteriori probabilities. Trans. Fac. Actuaries, 8:182–192, 1920.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lotus Notes.
  15. 15.
    P. Maes. Agents that Reduce Work and Information Overload. Communications of the ACM, 37(7):31–40, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Andrew McCallum and Kamal Nigam. A Comparison of Event Models for Naive Bayes Text Classification. In AAAI-98 Workshop on “Learning for Text Categorization”, 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Andrew McCallum, Ronald Rosenfeld, Tom Mitchell, and Andrew Ng. Improving Text Classification by Shrinkage in a Hierarchy of Classes. In Intl. Conf. on Machine Learning, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tom M. Mitchell. Machine Learning, chapter 6. McGraw-Hill, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T.R. Payne and P. Edwards. Interface Agents that Learn: An Investigation of Learning Issues in a Mail Agent Interface. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 11:1–32, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Pazzani and D. Billsus. Learning and Revising User Profiles: The identification of interesting web sites. Machine Learning, 27:313–331, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    E. Rasmussen. Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms, chapter Clustering algorithms, pages 419–442. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    E.S. Ristad. A Natural Law of Succession. Technical report, Princeton University, 1995. Research Report CS-TR-495-95.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Sahami, S. Dumais, D. Heckerman, and E. Horvitz. A Bayesian Approach to Filtering Junk E-mail. In Proc. of the AAAI’98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, Madison, Wisconsin, 1998.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    M. Sahami, S. Yusufali, and M.Q.W. Baldonado. Sonia: A service for organizing networked information autonomously. In Proc. of the Third ACM Conference on Digital Libraries, pages 200–209, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Segal and J. Kephart. MailCat: An Intelligent Assistant for Organizing E-Mail. In Proc. of the Third Int’l Conf. on Autonomous Agents, 1999.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    John Shafer, Rakesh Agrawal, and Manish Mehta. SPRINT: A Scalable Parallel Classifier for Data Mining. In Proc. of the 22nd Int’l Conference on Very Large Databases, Bombay, India, September 1996.Google Scholar
  27. 27.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rakesh Agrawal
    • 1
  • Roberto Bayardo
    • 1
  • Ramakrishnan Srikant
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Almaden Research CenterSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations