das :: Activity :: Just Me | People: | Everyone | Friends & Community | Inbox | Just Me |
| Display: | Full-text | Summary |
| Include: | Blog Posts | Blog Comments | Files | Wiki Page | Wiki Comments |
| << Back | Page 1 of 9 |
|
|
Comment on "07/06/05: back from DECALOG" das | weblog comment | Fri Sep 30 Afterwards appeared a lot of molds especially ugg outlet, include to axe the shell Er, Xin Di, gram Lao Bi, they are more and more important for fashionable dresses.Afterwards the photographer also became an occupation of essential to have, they usually can make clothing clap out more beautiful.The mold becomes more and more important especially, the clothes seem the not essential , when people read a fashionable dresses magazine, seem to be more, the that time seeing packs a mold especially. And the fashionable dresses mold charges especially also more and more high, this arouse fashion designer of less and less full.They feel the situation that the mold robbed clothes especially, they the design clothes of bitter hard bitterness, but nobody importance ugg boots, contrary people always at discuss which mold especially more beautiful ugg boots, even have poise. |
|
|
|
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 E.g., if a VP which is a constituent of an S is withdrawn (parser removes grounded-in, because it doesn't think anymore that the evidence (the words) justify hypothesis of VP), the S must be marked as ungrounded as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
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Home Page das | page | Tue May 20 Besprechungsprotokolle / meeting minutes (newest first) 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
|
|
|
|
minutes080508 das | page | Thu May 08 - present: M, T, D - priority: close processing chain. Finally get something from ASR to parser to DM to TTS -- even if it is only a parrot system! - Dialogue Manager: - can be something like Dipper, i.e. information-state update based.. - or FSA (specified in SCXML or similar?) - but rules can be simple anyway, simple FSA-stuff: - identification -> confirmation (repeat on negative) -> orientation -> confirmation (repeat on negative) -> placement (repeat on negative) - S: "Welche Teil?" U: "Das zweite von links" S: "Das hier?" U: "Nein, daneben". [ --> need to be able to deal with context-dependent utterances ] - do WOz pretty soon? Wizard hears user utterances, can trigger simple prompts: - "Welches Teil?" "Soll ich es drehen" "Wohin?"; "So?" "Hier?" - to hide that Wizard is human, let GUI do mouse movements? I.e., wizard selects parameters of action (selecting piece, rotating it, dragging it), then selects prompt ("So?"); this is then sent to system which executes action (e.g., computes and executes mouse path; plays synchronised utterance). This won't allow us to test reaction to smooth turn-taking (since it is non-incremental; the wizard will have to fully specify the action), but it will allow us to test user reactions & learn about the complexity of their speech. Especially the reactions to CRs like "so?". E.g., "nein, eins weiter hoch".
|
|
|
|
050508cont das | page | Thu May 08 - semantics of utterances: for prototype, treat all referring expressions as *names*, i.e. with their semantics specified in the lexicon? - for pieces: expressions like "the cross". A bit of a stretch to treat things like "the second on the left side in the second row" as names. This can be translated into some sort of coordinate, but would still need to be resolved -- that this expression refers to piece3 can't be a fact of the lexicon. - for locations: expressions like "the back of the elephant" refer to a location, which can initially be represented by a single coordinate. Then zooming-in process sets in (see below). - how much intelligence does the non-ling-action executor have? What does the Dialogue Manager communicate to it? Let's assume the question was "where shall I move it?" (i.e., piece has been identified), and the answer "to the back of the elephant" has been correctly understood. This instruction is underspecified. How do we get to the right location? What does the DM tell the "arm"? And what does the arm answer back? - DM: `move (10,20)' - Arm: done. closest legal position is (11,20). [i.e., arm knows about legal positions, identifies these independently] - DM: to TTS `here?' - User: `yes' - DM to arm `drop' - for prototype: movements can be interrupted by user. `action barge-in' - for prototype: nothing can be removed? - TO DOs parser: - brain-stormed a bit. (On Tuesday.) - keep structure of referring expressions around, even if for now we treat them as names. - HPSG-inspired? With HEAD, DTRS, SEM, RESTR features etc. - but basis (for semantics) is the frame: ACTION: move AGENS: system (implicit) PATIENS: piece START_POS: TARGET_POS: features can be left unspecified, even when utterance is complete. - identified issues: 1. complex descriptions (see above). Keep internal structure of descriptions, for latter (concurrent) processing by other modules 2. also need semantics for interaction management utterances like "yes", "no", "one up", "daneben", etc. 3. need info about (potential) completeness. Parser features as used in Nigh experiments. 4. fragments / context ellipsis. "Welches Teil soll ich jetzt nehmen?" "Das Kreuz" should produce same semantics as "Nimm das Kreuz"? Or is this contextual merge done in later module? - TO DOs for ASR part: - get partial results w/ n-gram model? - get confidence scores out - learn more about configurations - get n-best lists / lattices ---> Friday, 1st International Sphinx Day |
|
|
|
minutes080508 das | page | Thu May 08 - present: M, T, D - priority: close processing chain. Finally get something from ASR to parser to DM to TTS -- even if it is only a parrot system! - Dialogue Manager: - can be something like Dipper, i.e. information-state update based.. - or FSA (specified in SCXML or similar?) - but rules can be simple anyway, simple FSA-stuff: - identification -> confirmation (repeat on negative) -> orientation -> confirmation (repeat on negative) -> placement (repeat on negative) - S: "Welche Teil?" U: "Das zweite von links" S: "Das hier?" U: "Nein, daneben". [ --> need to be able to deal with context-dependent utterances ] - do WOz pretty soon? Wizard hears user utterances, can trigger simple prompts: - "Welches Teil?" "Soll ich es drehen" "Wohin?"; "So?" "Hier?" - to hide that Wizard is human, let GUI do mouse movements? I.e., wizard selects parameters of action (selecting piece, rotating it, dragging it), then selects prompt ("So?"); this is then sent to system which executes action (e.g., computes and executes mouse path; plays synchronised utterance). This won't allow us to test reaction to smooth turn-taking (since it is non-incremental; the wizard will have to fully specify the action), but it will allow us to test user reactions & learn about the complexity of their speech. Especially the reactions to CRs like "so?". E.g., "nein, eins weiter hoch". THE FRIGGING WIKI IS BROKEN. you can find the complete minutes on my weblog.
|
| << Back | Page 1 of 9 |