IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i1p219-d127271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Hierarchical Feature Extraction Model for Multi-Label Mechanical Patent Classification

Author

Listed:
  • Jie Hu

    (Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology of Ministry of Education, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Shaobo Li

    (Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology of Ministry of Education, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
    School of Mechanical Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

  • Jianjun Hu

    (School of Mechanical Engineering, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China
    Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA)

  • Guanci Yang

    (Key Laboratory of Advanced Manufacturing Technology of Ministry of Education, Guizhou University, Guiyang 550025, China)

Abstract

Various studies have focused on feature extraction methods for automatic patent classification in recent years. However, most of these approaches are based on the knowledge from experts in related domains. Here we propose a hierarchical feature extraction model (HFEM) for multi-label mechanical patent classification, which is able to capture both local features of phrases as well as global and temporal semantics. First, a n -gram feature extractor based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs) is designed to extract salient local lexical-level features. Next, a long dependency feature extraction model based on the bidirectional long–short-term memory (BiLSTM) neural network model is proposed to capture sequential correlations from higher-level sequence representations. Then the HFEM algorithm and its hierarchical feature extraction architecture are detailed. We establish the training, validation and test datasets, containing 72,532, 18,133, and 2679 mechanical patent documents, respectively, and then check the performance of HFEMs. Finally, we compared the results of the proposed HFEM and three other single neural network models, namely CNN, long–short-term memory (LSTM), and BiLSTM. The experimental results indicate that our proposed HFEM outperforms the other compared models in both precision and recall.

Suggested Citation

  • Jie Hu & Shaobo Li & Jianjun Hu & Guanci Yang, 2018. "A Hierarchical Feature Extraction Model for Multi-Label Mechanical Patent Classification," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-22, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:219-:d:127271
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/219/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/1/219/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joung, Junegak & Kim, Kwangsoo, 2017. "Monitoring emerging technologies for technology planning using technical keyword based analysis from patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 281-292.
    2. Loh, Han Tong & He, Cong & Shen, Lixiang, 2006. "Automatic classification of patent documents for TRIZ users," World Patent Information, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 6-13, March.
    3. Joohyung Lim & Sungchul Choi & Chiehyeon Lim & Kwangsoo Kim, 2017. "SAO-Based Semantic Mining of Patents for Semi-Automatic Construction of a Customer Job Map," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Gabjo Kim & Joonhyuck Lee & Dongsik Jang & Sangsung Park, 2016. "Technology Clusters Exploration for Patent Portfolio through Patent Abstract Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Park, Youngjin & Yoon, Janghyeok, 2017. "Application technology opportunity discovery from technology portfolios: Use of patent classification and collaborative filtering," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 170-183.
    6. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2013. "Erratum to: A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 83-83, July.
    7. Christopher L. Benson & Christopher L. Magee, 2013. "A hybrid keyword and patent class methodology for selecting relevant sets of patents for a technological field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 96(1), pages 69-82, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doina Caragea & Theodor Cojoianu & Mihai Dobri & Andreas Hoepner & Oana Peia & Davide Romelli, 2024. "Competition and Innovation in the Financial Sector: Evidence from the Rise of FinTech Start-ups," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 65(1), pages 103-140, February.
    2. Liyuan Zhang & Wei Liu & Yufei Chen & Xiaodong Yue, 2022. "Reliable Multi-View Deep Patent Classification," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(23), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos & Miltiadis Lytras, 2018. "Knowledge Management, Innovation and Big Data: Implications for Sustainability, Policy Making and Competitiveness," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-7, June.
    4. Arousha Haghighian Roudsari & Jafar Afshar & Wookey Lee & Suan Lee, 2022. "PatentNet: multi-label classification of patent documents using deep learning based language understanding," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 207-231, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parraguez, Pedro & Škec, Stanko & e Carmo, Duarte Oliveira & Maier, Anja, 2020. "Quantifying technological change as a combinatorial process," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Park, Inchae & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2022. "Tracing the emergence of new technology: A comparative analysis of five technological domains," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    3. Singh, Anuraag & Triulzi, Giorgio & Magee, Christopher L., 2021. "Technological improvement rate predictions for all technologies: Use of patent data and an extended domain description," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    4. Subarna Basnet & Christopher L Magee, 2017. "Artifact interactions retard technological improvement: An empirical study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, August.
    5. Junegak Joung & Kiwook Jung & Sanghyun Ko & Kwangsoo Kim, 2018. "Customer Complaints Analysis Using Text Mining and Outcome-Driven Innovation Method for Market-Oriented Product Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, December.
    6. Matthias Niggli & Christian Rutzer, 2023. "Digital technologies, technological improvement rates, and innovations “Made in Switzerland”," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, Springer;Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics, vol. 159(1), pages 1-31, December.
    7. Triulzi, Giorgio & Alstott, Jeff & Magee, Christopher L., 2020. "Estimating technology performance improvement rates by mining patent data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    8. Annapoornima M. Subramanian & Moren Lévesque & Vareska van de Vrande, 2020. "“Pulling the Plug:” Time Allocation between Drug Discovery and Development Projects," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(12), pages 2851-2876, December.
    9. Jason Jihoon Ree & Cheolhyun Jeong & Hyunseok Park & Kwangsoo Kim, 2019. "Context–Problem Network and Quantitative Method of Patent Analysis: A Case Study of Wireless Energy Transmission Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, March.
    10. Bruns, Stephan B. & Kalthaus, Martin, 2020. "Flexibility in the selection of patent counts: Implications for p-hacking and evidence-based policymaking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(1).
    11. Martin Ho & Henry CW Price & Tim S Evans & Eoin O'Sullivan, 2023. "Order in Innovation," Papers 2302.13076, arXiv.org.
    12. Ansgar Moeller & Martin G. Moehrle, 2015. "Completing keyword patent search with semantic patent search: introducing a semiautomatic iterative method for patent near search based on semantic similarities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 77-96, January.
    13. Changbae Mun & Sejun Yoon & Hyunseok Park, 2019. "Structural decomposition of technological domain using patent co-classification and classification hierarchy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(2), pages 633-652, November.
    14. MAVRIDIS, Dimitrios & CSÉFALVAY, Zoltan & GKOTSIS, Petros & POTTERS, Lesley, 2021. "A Preliminary Index of SARS-CoV-2 Diagnostic Testing Patents," JRC Working Papers on Corporate R&D and Innovation 2020-07, Joint Research Centre.
    15. Benson, Christopher L. & Magee, Christopher L., 2014. "On improvement rates for renewable energy technologies: Solar PV, wind turbines, capacitors, and batteries," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 745-751.
    16. Shubbak, Mahmood H., 2019. "Advances in solar photovoltaics: Technology review and patent trends," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    17. Christopher L Benson & Christopher L Magee, 2015. "Quantitative Determination of Technological Improvement from Patent Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    18. Fang Han & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Testing the science/technology relationship by analysis of patent citations of scientific papers after decomposition of both science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 767-796, August.
    19. Mariam Barry & Giorgio Triulzi & Christopher L. Magee, 2017. "Food Productivity Trends from Hybrid Corn: Statistical Analysis of Patents and Field-test data," Papers 1706.05911, arXiv.org.
    20. Yoon, Byungun & Magee, Christopher L., 2018. "Exploring technology opportunities by visualizing patent information based on generative topographic mapping and link prediction," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 105-117.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:1:p:219-:d:127271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.