David Schlangen : Home Page > minutes190508
- 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?
das, 05/20/08 10:01 (GMT)
Keyword: acoustical model,
ASR,
meetings,
minutes,
parserAdd a new page under this one
