Semantic Text Dissimilarity Demonstration via Multi-Model GUI

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current natural language processing (NLP) solutions provide only one-dimensional analysis of textual similarity and dissimilarity, failing to systematically demonstrate dissimilarity in response to apparent similarity or vice versa, lacking mechanisms to aid users in determining semantic dissimilarity or similarity between text fragments.

Innovation Solution

The development of computer-implemented methods and systems that utilize semantic models to identify and display top-k text fragments most similar or dissimilar to a given text fragment, presenting these through a graphical user interface (GUI) for user evaluation, with distinct measures for similarity and dissimilarity, and employing machine learning models like word embeddings and bag-of-words to quantify textual relationships.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If traditional NLP similarity analysis is used, then computational simplicity is maintained, but the ability to systematically demonstrate dissimilarity in response to apparent similarity is lost

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveability to demonstrate dissimilarityVSAvoidanalysis complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the text comparison task into multiple dimensions by employing different semantic models (e.g., word embedding models, bag-of-words models) to analyze the same text pairs from different perspectives. This segmentation allows the system to demonstrate both similarity and dissimilarity systematically by aggregating results across multiple model dimensions, thereby resolving the contradiction between analysis versatility and complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces additional analytical dimensions by using multiple semantic models simultaneously. Instead of relying on a single similarity metric, the system evaluates text pairs across multiple semantic spaces and dimensions, enabling it to detect both apparent similarity and underlying dissimilarity. This dimensional expansion directly addresses the limitation of traditional one-dimensional analysis while managing complexity through structured multi-model evaluation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

2Measurement precision

If multiple semantic models are employed to provide comprehensive analysis, then measurement precision is improved, but computational resources and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesemantic analysis precisionVSAvoidprocessing efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a tiered evaluation approach where text pairs are first screened using computationally efficient models (e.g., bag-of-words), and only those requiring deeper analysis are processed by more resource-intensive models (e.g., word embeddings). This partial application of comprehensive analysis maintains measurement precision for critical cases while preserving overall processing efficiency by avoiding unnecessary computational expenditure on all text pairs.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system employs self-service mechanisms by automatically selecting and applying appropriate semantic models based on the characteristics of the input text and the specific analysis requirements. The multi-model framework serves itself by routing queries to the most suitable evaluation dimension, thereby maintaining high measurement precision while optimizing computational resource utilization and processing throughput.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Reliability

If detailed textual evidence is presented to users, then analysis reliability is improved, but information overload and user complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedemonstration reliabilityVSAvoiduser interface simplicity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by selectively presenting detailed textual evidence and semantic comparisons only for specific regions or aspects of the analysis that require user attention. Rather than displaying all possible evidence uniformly, the system highlights locally relevant dissimilarities and similarities based on the semantic model results, thereby maintaining demonstration reliability while preserving user interface simplicity through targeted, context-aware information presentation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS11321526B2Demonstrating textual dissimilarity in response to apparent or asserted similarity
Publication Date: 2022.05.03 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION
  • US11321526B2 patent drawing
  • US11321526B2 patent drawing
  • US11321526B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A system identifies a first text fragment as being under evaluation, wherein the first text is in at least a first document being compared to a second document using a first semantic model. The system compares the first text fragment to one or more text fragments of the second document. The system identifies top-k text fragments in the second document that are most similar to the first text fragment based on processing using the first semantic model. The system presents a user, via a graphical user interface (GUI), the top-k text fragments in visual proximity to the first text fragment.