Category Archives: Continuous Active Learning

What Can TAR Do? In This Case, Eliminate Review of 260,000 Documents

Catalyst_Blog_What_Can_TAR_DoMany legal professionals continue to question whether technology assisted review is right for them. Perhaps you are a corporate counsel wondering whether TAR can actually reduce review costs. Or maybe you are a litigator unsure of whether TAR is suitable for your case.

For anyone still uncertain about TAR, Catalyst is offering the TAR Challenge. Give us an actual case of yours in which you’ve completed a manual review, and we will run a simulation showing you how the review would have gone – and what savings you would have achieved – had you used Insight Predict, Catalyst’s award-winning TAR 2.0 platform. Continue reading

The TAR Challenge: How One Client Could Have Cut Review By More Than 57%

Catalyst_TAR_Challenge_Client_Save_57_PercentHow much can you save using TAR 2.0, the advanced form of technology assisted review used by Catalyst’s Insight Predict? That is a question many of our clients ask, until they try it and see for themselves.

Perhaps you’ve wondered about this. You’ve read articles or web sites talking about TAR’s ability to lower review costs by reducing the numbers of documents requiring review. You might even have read about the even-greater gains in efficiency delivered by second-generation TAR 2.0 platforms that use the continuous active learning protocol. But still you’ve held out, maybe uncertain of the technology or wondering whether it is right for your cases. Continue reading

Our 10 Most Popular TAR-Related Posts of 2017 (so far)

Catalyst_Top_10_TAR_PostsMachine learning is an area of artificial intelligence that enables computers to self-learn, without explicit programming. In e-discovery, machine-learning technologies such as technology assisted review (TAR) are helping legal teams dramatically speed document review and thereby reduce its cost. TAR learns which documents are most likely relevant and feeds those first to reviewers, typically eliminating the need to review from 50 to 90 percent of a collection.

Lawyers are getting it, as evidenced by their expanding use of TAR. At Catalyst, 50 percent of matters now routinely use TAR—and none have been challenged in court. Continue reading

New Book from Catalyst Answers Your Questions about TAR

Ask_Catalyst_EbookHot off the press is a new, complimentary book from Catalyst that answers your questions about technology assisted review.

The new book, Ask Catalyst: A User’s Guide to TAR, provides detailed answers to 20 basic and advanced questions about TAR, and particularly about advanced TAR 2.0 using continuous active learning.

The questions all came from you – our clients, blog readers and webinar attendees. We receive a lot of good questions about e-discovery technology and specifically about TAR, and we answer every question we get. Continue reading

Catalyst Research: Family-Based Review and Expert Training — Experimental Simulations, Real Data

Catalyst_Exclusive_ResearchABSTRACT

In this research we answer two main questions: (1) What is the efficiency of a TAR 2.0 family-level document review versus a TAR 2.0 individual document review, and (2) How useful is expert-only (aka TAR 1.0 with expert) training, relative to TAR 2.0’s ability to conflate training and review using non-expert judgments [2]? Continue reading

Riddle Me This: How Does One Reviewer Do The Work of 48?

Catalyst_Infographic_TC_How_Does_1_Reviewer_Do_the_Work_of_48How does one reviewer do the work of 48? It may sound like a riddle, but a new infographic created by Catalyst illustrates the answer.

The question the infographic poses is this: In a review of 723,537 documents, how many reviewers would you need to finish in five days?

The answer depends on whether you are using an early version of technology assisted review (TAR 1.0) or a new-generation TAR 2.0 version. Continue reading

Infographic: Cut the Cost of Discovery in Five Easy Steps

Catalyst_TC_Infographic_Five_StepsIt is difficult to pin down precise numbers on how much companies spend on e-discovery. A 2010 survey prepared for the Duke Conference on Civil Litigation found that the average company paid $621,880 to $3 million per case and that companies at the high end paid $2.4 million to $9.8 million per case. A RAND study put the cost at a median of $1.8 million per case.

What we do know for certain is that e-discovery costs continue to rise as data continues to become more voluminous and complex. According to RAND, roughly 70 percent of e-discovery costs are attributable to document review. Continue reading

Video: How Contextual Diversity in TAR 2.0 Keeps You from Missing Key Pockets of Documents

blog_contextual_diversity_videoHow do you know what you don’t know when using technology assisted review? As I discussed in a recent post, this is a classic problem when searching a large volume of documents. You could miss documents, topics or terms in a collection simply because you don’t know to search for them.

Contextual Diversity is the solution to that problem. A proprietary TAR 2.0 tool built into Insight Predict, it continuously and actively explores unreviewed documents for concepts or topics that haven’t been seen, ensuring you’ve looked into all corners of the collection. Continue reading

Catalyst Publishes 2nd Edition of its Popular Book ‘TAR for Smart People’

Book-2ndEditionI never liked the …for Dummies book titles. So when we released the revised and expanded second edition of our book about technology assisted review at Legaltech New York, I was glad we stuck with the original title, TAR for Smart People: How Technology Assisted Review Works and Why It Matters for Legal Professionals.

Download TAR for Smart People.

In a complex professional practice area such as law, it has become impossible for individual practitioners to hold high levels of expertise in every area that a project might involve. Our brains just aren’t big enough to hold everything we humans have learned. No shame in that. Continue reading

In First for UK, High Court Master Approves Use of TAR

Taking his lead from the seminal U.S. case, Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, a master of Britain’s High Court of Justice has approved the use of technology assisted review, becoming the first case to do so in the United Kingdom and only the second case outside the U.S. to approve TAR.

In a written decision issued Feb. 16, 2016, in the case Pyrrho Investments Ltd. v. MWB Property Ltd., Master Matthews, who is similar in responsibility to a magistrate judge in the U.S. federal court system – provided his reasons for his approval of the parties’ request to use TAR in a case involving some 3.1 million electronic documents. Continue reading