IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,361,203
Granted Patent B2
US 12,361,203 · App. 16/388,287 · Granted Jul 15, 2025

Architectures for modeling comment and edit relations

Inventors: Xuchao Zhang (Redmond, WA); Sujay Kumar Jauhar (Redmond, WA); Michael Gamon (Seattle, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
G06F40/169G06F40/197G06F40/20G06N3/08G06N20/00
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,361,203
App. No.
16/388,287
Granted
Jul 15, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Generally discussed herein are devices, systems, and methods for determining a relationship between an edit and a comment. A system can include a memory to store parameters defining a machine learning (ML) model, the ML model to determine a relationship between an edit, by an author or reviewer, of content of a document and a comment, by a same or different author or reviewer, regarding the content of the document, and processing circuitry to provide the comment and the edit as input to the ML model, and receive, from the ML model, data indicating a relationship between the comment and the edit, the relationship including whether the edit addresses the comment or a location of the content that is a target of the comment.

Claims (32)

1. A system comprising:

a memory to store parameters defining a hierarchical neural network (NN) machine learning (ML) model trained using a supervised learning technique, the ML model to determine a relationship between an edit, by an author or reviewer, of content of a body of a pre-edit version of a document that alters the content of the body of the pre-edit version of the document resulting in a post-edit version of the document and a comment in the post-edit version of the document, the comment separate from the body of the post-edit version of the document, by a same or different author or reviewer, regarding the content of the body of the pre-edit version of the document; and

processing circuitry to:

determine, based on the pre-edit version of the document and the post-edit version of the document, an action encoding indicating whether the content is the same, removed, or added between content of the pre-edit version and post-edit version of the document by associating content only in the pre-edit version with a first label of removed, associating content only in the post-edit version with a second, different label of added, and associating content in both the pre-edit version and the post-edit version with a third, different label of same;

provide the comment, the pre-edit version of the document, the action encoding, and the post-edit version of the document as input to the ML model, the post-edit version of the document including the pre-edit version of the document after the edit by the author or reviewer; and

receive, from the ML model and based on the pre-edit version of the document, the action encoding, and the post-edit version, data indicating whether the edit to the content of the body addresses the comment or a location in the body of the content of the body that is a target of the comment.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the data from the ML model indicates at least one of (a) the comment most-related to the edit or (b) a location of the post-edit version of the document that is the target of the edit, given the comment.

3. The system of claim 2 , wherein the ML model is configured to determine a relevance score between the edit and the comment and provide the data based on the relevance score.

4. The system of claim 1 , wherein the ML model includes an input embed layer that projects words in the edit and the comment to one or more respective vector spaces, a context embed layer to model sequential interaction between content based on the projected edit and comment, a comment-edit attention layer to model a relationship between the edit and the comment based on the modeled sequential interaction, and an output layer to determine the relationship between the edit and the comment based on the modeled relationship.

5. The system of claim 4 , wherein the context embed layer determines a similarity matrix based on the edit and the comment, wherein the similarity matrix includes values indicating how similar content of the edit is to content of the comment.

6. The system of claim 5 , wherein the comment-edit attention layer determines a normalized probability distribution of the similarity matrix combined with the action encoding.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein the processing circuitry is further to provide a signal to an application that generated the document, the signal indicating a modification to the document.

8. A method of determining a relationship between an edit of a body of a pre-edit version of a document that alters content of the body of the pre-edit version of the document resulting in a post-edit version of the document and a comment in the document and separate from the body of the document, the method comprising:

labelling unchanged content between a pre-edit version of the document and a post-edit version of the document with a first label;

labelling content in the pre-edit version of the document that is different from the content in the post-edit version of the document with a second, different label;

labelling the content in the post-edit version of the document that is different from the content in the pre-edit version of the document with a third, different label; and

determining, based on the content in the pre-edit version of the document, the content in the post-edit version of the document, the comment, and the first, second, and third labels, and using a machine learning (ML) model that receives the content in the pre-edit version of the document, the content in the post-edit version of the document, the comment, and the first, second, and third labels, the relationship between the comment and the edit, the ML model trained based on at least one of a comment ranking loss function or an edit anchoring loss function.

9. The method of claim 8 , wherein the ML model is trained based on both the comment ranking loss function and the edit anchoring loss function.

10. The method of claim 8 , wherein the ML model is a hierarchical neural network (NN) trained using a supervised learning technique.

11. The method of claim 10 , wherein the ML model includes an input embed layer that projects the edit and the comment to a vector space, a context embed layer to model sequential interaction between content based on the projected edit and comment, a comment-edit attention layer to model a relationship between the projected and embedded edit and the projected and embedded comment based on the modeled sequential interaction, and an output layer to determine the relationship between the edit and the comment based on the modeled relationship.

12. The method of claim 11 , wherein the context embed layer determines a similarity matrix based on the edit and the comment, wherein the similarity matrix includes values indicating how similar content of the edit is to content of the comment.

13. A non-transitory machine-readable medium including instructions that, when executed by a machine, configure the machine to perform operations comprising:

receiving pre-edit content of a document, post-edit content of the document that includes an edit to a body of the pre-edit content of the document resulting in the post-edit content of the document, and a comment of the document separate from the body of the document;

operating a machine learning (ML) model on the pre-edit content, post-edit content, and the comment to determine a relevance score indicating the relevance of content in the post-edit content that is not in the pre-edit content and the comment, the ML model trained based on at least one of a comment ranking loss function or an edit anchoring loss function; and

providing data indicating a relationship between the content in the post-edit content that is not in the pre-edit content and the comment.

14. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13 , wherein the operations further comprise:

labelling unchanged content between the pre-edit content of the document and the post-edit content of the document with a first label;

labelling content in the pre-edit content of the document that is different from the content in the post-edit content of the document with a second, different label;

labelling content in the post-edit content of the document that is different from the content in the pre-edit content of the document with a third, different label; and

wherein operating the ML model includes further operating the ML model on the first, second, and third labels to determine the relationship between content in the post-edit content that is not in the pre-edit content and the comment of the document.

15. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13 , wherein the ML model is trained based on both the comment ranking loss function and the edit anchoring loss function.

16. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 13 , wherein the ML model is a hierarchical neural network (NN) trained using a supervised learning technique.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 29, 2019
From: ZHANG, XUCHAO; JAUHAR, SUJAY KUMAR; GAMON, MICHAEL
To: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC
Reel/Frame 049302/0358 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20200334326A1 · Oct 22, 2020
References Cited (48)
US 8381095B1 · Fischer · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8533593B2 · Grossman et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 9418054B2 · Shaver · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9705996B2 · Oh · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 10244286B1 · Jia · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20150142676A1 · McGinnis · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20150286624A1 · Simons et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20170024374A1 · Bastide · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170034107A1 · Krishnaswamy · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20170255604A1 · Wilde et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180041458A1 · Hawkins · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180260416A1 · Elkaim · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180261214A1 · Gehring · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20200133662A1 · Smith · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20200293616A1 · Nelson · 2020 [cited by examiner]
CN 106575287A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 106663089A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 109213870A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
Aji, et al., “Using the Past to Score the Present: Extending Term Weighting Models Through Revision History Analysis”, In Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Oct… [cited by applicant]
Androutsopoulos, et al., “A Survey of Paraphrasing and Textual Entailment Methods”, In Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 38, Issue 1, May 28, 2010, pp. 135-187. [cited by applicant]
Bronner, et al., “User Edits Classification Using Document Revision Histories”, In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Apr. 23, 2012, pp. 356-366. [cited by applicant]
Burges, Christopher J.C., “From Ranknet to Lambdarank to Lambdamart: An Overview”, In Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2010-82, Jun. 23, 2010, pp. 1-19. [cited by applicant]
Burges, et al., “Learning to Rank Using Gradient Descent”, In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Aug. 7, 2005, 8 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Burges, et al., “Learning to Rank with Nonsmooth Cost Functions”, In Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Dec. 4, 2006, 8 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Chung, et al., “Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modeling”, In repository of arXiv, arXiv:1412.3555, Dec. 11, 2014, pp. 1-9. [cited by applicant]
Conneau, et al., “Supervised Learning of Universal Sentence Representations from Natural Language Inference Data”, In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Sep. 7, 2017, pp. … [cited by applicant]
Crammer, et al., “Online Passive-aggressive Algorithms”, In Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 7, Mar. 2006, pp. 551-585. [cited by applicant]
Ganter, et al., “Finding Hedges by Chasing Weasels: Hedge Detection Using Wikipedia Tags and Shallow Linguistic Features”, In Proceedings of the ACL-IJCNLP 2009 Conference Short Papers, Aug. 4, 2009, pp. 173-176. [cited by applicant]
Liaw, et al., “Classification and Regression by Randomforest”, In Journal of R News, vol. 2, Issue 3, Dec. 2002, pp. 18-22. [cited by applicant]
Max, et al., “Mining Naturally-occurring Corrections and Paraphrases from Wikipedia's Revision History”, In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, May 2010, pp. 3143-31… [cited by applicant]
Nalisnick, et al., “Improving Document Ranking with Dual Word Embeddings”, In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, Apr. 11, 2016, pp. 83-84. [cited by applicant]
Nunes, et al., “Term Weighting Based on Document Revision History”, In Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 62, Issue 12, Dec. 2011, 26 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Nunes, et al., “Wikichanges: Exposing Wikipedia Revision Activity”, In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Wikis, Article No. 25, Sep. 8, 2008, 4 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Pennington, et al., “Glove: Global Vectors for Word Representation”, In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Oct. 25, 2014, pp. 1532-1543. [cited by applicant]
Ratsch, et al., “Soft Margins for AdaBoost”, In Journal of Machine Learning vol. 42, Issue 3, Mar. 1, 2001, pp. 287-320. [cited by applicant]
Seo, et al., “Bidirectional Attention Flow for Machine Comprehension”, In repository of arXiv, arXiv:1611.01603, Nov. 5, 2016, pp. 1-12. [cited by applicant]
Yamangil, et al., “Mining Wikipedia Revision Histories for Improving Sentence Compression”, In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technologies: Shor… [cited by applicant]
Yang, et al., “Identifying Semantic Edit Intentions from Revisions in Wikipedia”, In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Sep. 7, 2017, pp. 2000-2010. [cited by applicant]
Yatskar, et al., “For the Sake of Simplicity: Unsupervised Extraction of Lexical Simplifications from Wikipedia”, In Proceedings of the Human Language Technologies: The Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of… [cited by applicant]
Yu, et al., “Qanet: Combining Local Convolution with Global Self-Attention for Reading Comprehension”, In Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Learning Representations, Apr. 30, 2018, 16 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Zanzotto, et al., “Expanding Textual Entailment Corpora from Wikipedia Using Co-Training”, In Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on The People's Web Meets NLP: Collaboratively Constructed Semantic Resources, August , 2010,… [cited by applicant]
Zesch, Torsten, “Measuring Contextual Fitness Using Error Contexts Extracted from the Wikipedia Revision History”, In Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Lingu… [cited by applicant]
Zhu, et al., “Semantic Document Distance Measures and Unsupervised Document Revision Detection”, In Proceedings of the The 8th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Nov. 27, 2017, pp. 947-956. [cited by applicant]
Agrawal, et al., “Predicting the Quality of user Contributions via LSTMs”, In Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, Aug. 17, 2016, 10 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Dang, et al., “An End-To-End Learning Solution for Assessing the Quality of Wikipedia Articles”, In Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, Aug. 23, 2017, 11 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2020/023468”, Mailed Date: May 14, 2020, 13 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Office Action Issued in Indian Patent Application No. 202117044998”, Mailed Date: Aug. 3, 2023, 8 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Office Action Received for Chinese Application No. 202080028307.6, mailed on Oct. 17, 2023, 8 pages (English Translation Provided). [cited by applicant]