TAR, Proportionality, and Bad Algorithms (1-NN)

Are lawyers who use platforms lacking a simple tweak of a bad algorithm committing malpractice by doing so?

Extract from an article by Technology-Assisted Review expert Bill Dimm

Should proportionality arguments allow producing parties to get away with poor productions simply because they wasted a lot of effort due to an extremely bad algorithm?  This article examines one such bad algorithm that has been used in major review platforms, and shows that it could be made vastly more effective with a very minor tweak.  Are lawyers who use platforms lacking the tweak committing malpractice by doing so?

Last year I was moderating a panel on TAR (predictive coding) and I asked the audience what recall level they normally aim for when using TAR.  An attendee responded that it was a bad question because proportionality only required a reasonable effort.  Much of the audience expressed agreement.  This should concern everyone.  If quality of result (e.g., achieving a certain level of recall) is the goal, the requesting party really has no business asking how the result was achieved–any effort wasted by choosing a bad algorithm is born by the producing party.  On the other hand, if the target is expenditure of a certain amount of effort, doesn’t the requesting party have the right to know and object if the producing party has chosen a methodology that is extremely inefficient?

The algorithm I’ll be picking on today is a classifier called 1-nearest neighbor, or 1-NN.  You may be using it without ever having heard that name, so pay attention to my description of it and see if it sounds familiar.

Additional Reading:

WP-Backgrounds Lite by InoPlugs Web Design and Juwelier Schönmann 1010 Wien
Read previous post:
From Product To Platform: The Secret To Building A $10 Billion SaaS Business

Building a platform company requires a dominant application as the starting point, but making the leap has a range of...

Close