timo :: Activity :: Friends & Community | People: | Everyone | Friends & Community | Inbox | Just Me |
| Display: | Full-text | Summary |
| Include: | Blog Posts | Blog Comments | Files | Wiki Page | Wiki Comments |
| << Back | Page 2 of 11 | Forward >> |
|
|
Literature Day atterer | page | Thu May 29 LITERATURE LIST
-- James Allen's group -- Stoness, Tetreault, Allen (2004): Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction Aist (2006): Incrementally Segmenting Incoming Speech into Pragmatic Fragments Aist, Allen, Campana, Stoness, Swift, Tanenhaus (2007): Incremental understanding in human-computer dialogue and experimental evicence for advantages over nonincremental methods Aist, G.S., Allen, J., Campana, E., Galescu, L., Gomez Gallo, C.A., Stoness, S., Swift, M., and Tanenhaus, M. 2006. Software architectures for incremental understanding of human speech. Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP).Pittsburgh, September 17-21
-- misc -- DeVault and Stone (2003): Domain Inference in Incremental Interpretation Seginer (2007): Fast Unsupervised Incremental Parsing; ACL Nivre (2004): Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing J.-C. Chappelier, M. Rajman, R. Aragues, A. Rozenknop, Lattice Parsing for Speech Recognition, 6ème conférence sur le Traitement Automatique du Langage Naturel (TALN99), Cagèse, France, July 12-17, 1999 -- Matsubara lab -- Murase, Matsubara, Kato, Inagaki (2001): Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies ... or maybe a more recent paper from that group? Tomohiro Ohno, Shigeki Matsubara, Hideki Kashioka, Naoto Kato, Yasuyoshi Inagaki: Incremental Dependency Parsing of Japanese Spoken Monologue Based on Clause Boundaries, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (INTERSPEECH'2005-Eurospeech), http://slp.el.itc.nagoya-u.ac.jp/en/publications
|
|
|
|
Literature Day atterer | page | Thu May 29 LITERATURE LIST Stoness, Tetreault, Allen: Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction Aist: Incrementally Segmenting Incoming Speech into Pragmatic Fragments Aist, Allen, Campana, Stoness, Swift, Tanenhaus: Incremental understanding in human-computer dialogue and experimental evicence for advantages over nonincremental methods DeVault and Stone: Domain Inference in Incremental Interpretation Seginer (2007): Fast Unsupervised Incremental Parsing; ACL Nivre: Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing Murase, Matsubara, Kato, Inagaki (2001): Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies ... or maybe a more recent paper from that group? Tomohiro Ohno, Shigeki Matsubara, Hideki Kashioka, Naoto Kato, Yasuyoshi Inagaki: Incremental Dependency Parsing of Japanese Spoken Monologue Based on Clause Boundaries, Proceedings of the 9th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology (INTERSPEECH'2005-Eurospeech), http://slp.el.itc.nagoya-u.ac.jp/en/publications
TEST |
|
|
|
minutes260508 das | page | Tue May 27 - InPro, meeting, minutes, 26/05/08 - present: T, M, D - acoustic model: improving. coming along. - still to do: - from microphone to asr to parser - n-best, confidences - parser: - go parallel approach? Have both parser and pattern matcher that simply looks at the string so far and tries to grab from it whatever kinds of expressions it knows. Sort of named entity recognition.. .. but how can this be done incrementally? - discussed abstr incr model: - problem w/ meaning of grounded_in vs same-level-link. Is not an S node grounded in its constituents, rather than the string? Design decision, ultimately. All we want is that the necessary information is transmitted. E.g., if a VP which is a constituent of an S is withdrawn (parser removes grounded-in, because it doesn't think anymore that the evidence (the words) justify hypothesis of VP), the S must be marked as ungrounded as well. This can be given to the processor as a housekeeping task (if it ungrounds stg, it must also unground everything it has built on it), it can be added to the purge function (if an LB-IU has become ungrounded, purge it and everything that links to it on same level), or it can be done automatically through interleaving of grounded-in and same-level-link (the grounded-in of larger constituents can be expressed through reference to the grounded-in of its same-level constituents, in which case every change in their status automatically percolates up). Last option is probably the most elegant. - parser as semi-circular module. Constituents it has built are put on LB, to be consumed together with LB-IUs coming from previous module. - question of boundaries of task. Is this also used to model dialogue history? The links btw utterances? Could be done, but probably practically not useful.. But if done, maybe useful to have commit as 3-way distinction. `freeze', but allow to go back later and revise it, e.g. after a misunderstanding. (?). - does the model have to say something about how to avoid timing issues? Race conditions, starving, etc. Probably not. If time, one could think about how problematic conditions could arrive (e.g., a purge coming to late, after a hypothesis has been extended, thus failing to percolate quickly enough through the network. -- Although this probably could be avoided if the processor does its functions in sequence each time its triggered into action, with purge coming first.) |
|
|
|
minutes260508 das | page | Tue May 27 - InPro, meeting, minutes, 26/05/08 - present: T, M, D - acoustic model: improving. coming along. - still to do: - from microphone to asr to parser - n-best, confidences - parser: - go parallel approach? Have both parser and pattern matcher that simply looks at the string so far and tries to grab from it whatever kinds of expressions it knows. Sort of named entity recognition.. .. but how can this be done incrementally? - discussed abstr incr model: - problem w/ meaning of grounded_in vs same-level-link. Is not an S node grounded in its constituents, rather than the string? Design decision, ultimately. All we want is that the necessary information is transmitted. E.g., if a VP which is a constituent of an S is withdrawn (parser removes grounded-in, because it doesn't think anymore that the evidence (the words) justify hypothesis of VP), the S must be marked as ungrounded as well. This can be given to the processor as a housekeeping task (if it ungrounds stg, it must also unground everything it has built on it), it can be added to the purge function (if an LB-IU has become ungrounded, purge it and everything that links to it on same level), or it can be done automatically through interleaving of grounded-in and same-level-link (the grounded-in of larger constituents can be expressed through reference to the grounded-in of its same-level constituents, in which case every change in their status automatically percolates up). Last option is probably the most elegant. - parser as semi-circular module. Constituents it has built are put on LB, to be consumed together with LB-IUs coming from previous module. - question of boundaries of task. Is this also used to model dialogue history? The links btw utterances? Could be done, but probably practically not useful.. But if done, maybe useful to have commit as 3-way distinction. `freeze', but allow to go back later and revise it, e.g. after a misunderstanding. (?). - does the model have to say something about how to avoid timing issues? Race conditions, starving, etc. Probably not. If time, one could think about how problematic conditions could arrive (e.g., a purge coming to late, after a hypothesis has been extended, thus failing to percolate quickly enough through the network. -- Although this probably could be avoided if the processor does its functions in sequence each time its triggered into action, with purge coming first.) |
|
|
|
Home Page das | page | Tue May 27 Besprechungsprotokolle / meeting minutes (newest first) 26/05/08 minutes260508 19/05/08 minutes190508 05/05/08 minutes080508 14/04/08 minutes140408 03/02/08 minutes030208b 04/12/07 minutes041207 26/11/07 @Timo 19/11/07 minutes191107 13/11/07 minutes131107 05/11/07 minutes051107 22/10/07 minutes221007 01/10/07 minutes2007_10_01 10/09/07 minutes100907 23/08/07 minutes230807 03/07/07 minutes030707 19/06/07 minutes190607 05/06/07 minutes050607_zeitwort2 21/05/07 minutes210507
Sonstiges
|
|
|
|
Literature Day atterer | page | Thu May 22 LITERATURE LIST Stoness, Tetreault, Allen: Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction Aist: Incrementally Segmenting Incoming Speech into Pragmatic Fragments Aist, Allen, Campana, Stoness, Swift, Tanenhaus: Incremental understanding in human-computer dialogue and experimental evicence for advantages over nonincremental methods DeVault and Stone: Domain Inference in Incremental Interpretation Seginer: Fast Unsupervised Incremental Parsing Nivre: Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing Murase, Matsubara, Kato, Inagaki: Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies TEST |
|
|
|
Literature Day atterer | page | Tue May 20 LITERATURE LIST Stoness, Tetreault, Allen: Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction Aist: Incrementally Segmenting Incoming Speech into Pragmatic Fragments Aist, Allen, Campana, Stoness, Swift, Tanenhaus: Incremental understanding in human-computer dialogue and experimental evicence for advantages over nonincremental methods DeVault and Stone: Domain Inference in Incremental Interpretation Seginer: Fast Unsupervised Incremental Parsing Nivre: Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing Murase, Matsubara, Kato, Inagaki: Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies |
|
|
|
Literature Day atterer | page | Tue May 20
Stoness, Tetreault, Allen: Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction Aist: Incrementally Segmenting Incoming Speech into Pragmatic Fragments Aist, Allen, Campana, Stoness, Swift, Tanenhaus: Incremental understanding in human-computer dialogue and experimental evicence for advantages over nonincremental methods DeVault and Stone: Domain Inference in Incremental Interpretation Seginer: Fast Unsupervised Incremental Parsing Nivre: Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing Murase, Matsubara, Kato, Inagaki: Incremental CFG Parsing with Statistical Lexical Dependencies |
|
|
|
Literature Day atterer | page | Tue May 20
Stoness, Tetreault, Allen: Incremental Parsing with Reference Interaction Aist: Incrementally Segmenting Incoming Speech into Pragmatic Fragments Aist, Allen, Campana, Stoness, Swift, Tanenhaus: Incremental understanding in human-computer dialogue and experimental evicence for advantages over nonincremental methods DeVault and Stone: Domain Inference in Incremental Interpretation Seginer: Fast Unsupervised Incremental Parsing Nivre: Incrementality in Deterministic Dependency Parsing |
|
|
|
minutes190508 das | page | Tue May 20 - present: M, T, D 1. akustisches Modell - momentan nicht besonders gut. Trainiert mit Daten von vox forge (?). - to be redone with Pento Naming Corpus data - also add Verbmobil data? Kiel Korpus? - when that is done, tackle other points: - LexTree instead of SimpleLM, so that tri-gram LMs can be used - n-best lists, or lattices - confidence scores --> by end of May, we will have model that is good enough to at least get an idea of what we will be working with. Germany's next top (acoustic) model! 2. literature day(s) - topics: - parsing / semantics for SDS - incremental parsing (in general) - parsing and prosody - incremental systems - EOT prediction / recognition ----> collect paper suggestion on Wiki. Michaela will organise the (first) day. X. brief interlude: do we need new collaboration management system? What do we use at the moment: - email .. anouncements, rarely for content, moving of files - pro: - archivable / searchable - attachments - IM .. quick questions (T and D; M doesn't use at all) - pro: - fast, instant (d'uh) - cons: - not easy to search. breaks unity of transmission (where did I read that?) - Elgg .. mostly for meeting minutes (and there the wiki part is used only). T uses it for status reports. M doesn't use it at all. Not used for literature notes etc. - pro: - archival.. ? - cons: - active effort needed to put things there & to check for new entries (since integration of RSS in our workflows doesn't seem to work yet) What we'd need: - ideal would be a system that has more than one interface, including email. That is, new content can be contributed by email, web, whatever, is spread via email, can be searched in one central place. Bonus: has interface to svn, e.g. one can link to documents in the svn. also has IM client, and archives IMs. .. is that trac? probably not. Does that exist? Probably not. 3. WOz - controls mouse and prompts - data can be used for acoustic model and language model, also for learning about dialogue dynamics that can be expected. Main goal is to see how people behave if they assume that the capabilities of the instruction follower are limited. 4. Parser, requirements - robustness. Can't assume that it always will be able to parse into sentences. Should be happy with intermediate constituents. Doesn't this requirement fall out of incrementality in any case? If partial results are passed on, they always will be sub-S constiuents. Yes, but the problem has a slightly different aspect as well. The question is what to do if what the parser can possibly recognise (because of ASR problems) are sequences of NPs. If there is no syntactic rule that could potentially integrate those, if not specially prepared, the parser would not even attempt to build the later NPs. So what it boils down to again is the question of whether the parser needs a notion of being "restarted" or not. - incrementality. d'uh. - non-commital, capable of making revisions related to topic above. What happens if the parser decides to give up integrating new material into the current structure? - mid-term: probabilistic, integrate prosody (as information on words or as pseudo tokens), parse lattices Discussed: - is top-down parsing a good idea for an incremental parser? can this work? Think through, what are the problems that can arise in either case? --> Michaela? Think up a few example cases (including ambiguous and garbage-full sentences) and see what either parsing strategy will do. - how is commital (when parser decides that what it currently is consuming is unrelated to structure it has previously built) realised technically, how is it triggered? Cleaning datastructures. Empty chart, or un-link datastructure? |
| << Back | Page 2 of 11 | Forward >> |