David Schlangen : Home Page > minutes260508
- 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of an S is withdrawn (parser removes grounded-in, because it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.)
das, 05/27/08 08:30 (GMT)
Keyword: agmo,
hypothesis chains,
inpro,
meetings,
minutes,
parserAdd a new page under this one
