Heeman P, Johnston M, Denney J and Kaiser E. Beyond structured dialogues: Factoring out grounding. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Dec 1998, Sydney, Australia, 863-866.  Home/Search   Document Details and Download   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....14] Structured dialogue models have the advantage that they are relatively easy to design and re use. The required vocabulary and grammar for each dialogue state can be specified in advance, resulting in more constrained and consequently more reliable speech recognition and language understanding [4, 6, 9]. However, the disadvantage with these models is that they are inflexible and that, as the dialogue becomes more complex, they can lead to a combinatorial explosion of dialogue states [1] Attempts have been made to maintain the advantages of structured dialogue models while providing greater ....

.... that they are inflexible and that, as the dialogue becomes more complex, they can lead to a combinatorial explosion of dialogue states [1] Attempts have been made to maintain the advantages of structured dialogue models while providing greater flexibility in terms of user input and dialogue flow [4, 6]. User input can be more flexible if the system includes a natural language understanding component. This enables the user of a flight information system, for example, to speak all the required information in one utterance, or in different combinations of the information as required, instead of ....

Heeman P, Johnston M, Denney J and Kaiser E. Beyond structured dialogues: Factoring out grounding. Proceedings of 5th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Dec 1998, Sydney, Australia, 863-866.

....of attributes. A value can be specified for each attribute. Task of the dialogue interface is to determine an object on the grounds of knowledge of values of some attributes specified by the user. There are many strategies how and in which order to ask the user for the values (see e.g. 2] 3] [4], 7] 2 2.2 VoiceXML We need a general purpose tool for flexible design of the dialogue interfaces. In this area there exists a standardised language for describing the dialogues needed for the dialogue interfaces VoiceXML (see[6] This markup language ensures platform independence and ....

Heeman, P., Johnston, M., Denney, J., Kaiser, E.: Beyond Structured Dialogues: Factoring Out Grounding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP-98) Sydney, Australia, December 1998, pp. 863-866.

....A value can be speci Thetaed for each attribute. Task of the dialogue interface is to determine an object on the grounds of knowledge of values of some attributes speci Thetaed by the user. There are many strategies how and in which order to ask the user for the values (see e.g. 2] 3] [4], 7] 2 2.2 VoiceXML We need a general purpose tool for exible design of the dialogue interfaces. In this area there exists a standardised language for describing the dialogues needed for the dialogue interfaces # VoiceXML (see[6] This markup language ensures platform independence and ....

Heeman, P., Johnston, M., Denney, J., Kaiser, E.: Beyond Structured Dialogues: Factoring Out Grounding. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP-98) Sydney, Australia, December 1998, pp. 863-866.

.... Denecke and Waibel proposed the generation of clarification questions with domain modeling and underspecified representations to achieve a dialogue goal along an optimal sequences of questions [2] Heeman et al. advocated factoring out the grounding behavior from the structured dialogue model [3]. Papineni et al. used a freeflow dialogue management model based on a form, which correspond to a specific task in the domain. The dialogue manager is mainly responsible for choosing the appropriate form whichmatches the user s goal best [4] Ehrlich structured complex dialogs into sub dialogs ....

P. A. Heeman, M. Johnston, J. Denney and E. Kaiser, "Beyond Structured Dialogues: Factoring Out Grounding," Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP-98), pp. 933-936, Sydney, Australia, November.

....dialogue systems have been set up with a structured dialogue model that specifies every aspect of the human computer interaction. In a recent study, Heeman et al. suggest that this is motivated by the fact that structured systems presently are the only systems that are relatively simple to build [1]. The human computer interactions in such systems are almost exclusively system directed and place limits on the users linguistic input to the system. In the development of spoken dialogue systems, Wizard of Oz experiments are often used in an initial phase to collect speech data. However, it ....

Heeman, P. A., Johnston M., Denney J. and Kaiser, E. (1998) Beyond structured dialogues: Factoring out grounding. In Proceedings of ICSLP '98

....The dialogue management strategy leads to achieving the goal at the minimum cost of user effort. Much work has been done in the development of efficient dialogue managers for human computer interaction. Heeman et al. advocated factoring out the grounding behavior from structured dialogue model [1]. Denecke and Waibel proposed the generation of clarification questions with domain modeling and underspecified representations in order to arrive at a dialogue goal along an optimal sequences of questions [2] Papineni et al. proposed a free flow dialogue management model based on a form, which ....

P. A. Heeman, M. Johnston, J. Denney and E. Kaiser, "Beyond Structured Dialogues: Factoring Out Grounding", In Proceedings of the International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (ICSLP-98), pp933-936, Sydney, Australia, November 1998.

....syntactic analysis is a key for the interpretation of meaning. In addition to questions closely related to parsing, it is important to notice that the interpretation of utterances in a given discourse must also be based on a multi level discourse model, as various researchers have shown (e.g. [Hee98], Tra94] TraHin91] This means that the semantics of different parts of an utterance is determined by various elements or processes of the discourse model. In general, dialogue models combine notions defined in the knowledge base of the system s application as well as other notions defined in ....

P. Heeman et al, Beyond Structured Dialogues: Factoring out Grounding, in: Proceedings of ICSLP 98, Sydney, Australia 1998

....is used to describe different tasks such as user tasks and system tasks. We therefore use the term information specification form (ISF) This is further discussed in [8] any piece of information at more or less any point in the discourse, it is important to allow for such user behaviour, cf. [10] for another view on this. Based on information from the Interpreter and the current dialogue, as modelled in the dialogue tree, an instance of an ISF, corresponding to the user task, is associated with the current node in the dialogue tree. The ISF is used to see what information is missing and ....

Peter A. Heeman, Micahel Johnston, Justin Denney, and Edward Kaiser. Beyond structured dialogues: Factoring out grounding. In Proceedings of ICSLP'98, Sydney, Australia, 1998.

....i.e. conceptual model, domain model and dialogue model, is now enhanced with information specification forms, cf. figure 1. Furthermore, as users can, and often will, provide any piece of information at more or less any point in the discourse, it is important to allow for such user behaviour, cf. [11] for another view on this. The ISFs hold descriptions on the information needed for various user information needs that can be provided for by the system. When the dialogue manager resolved which ISF to pursue, based on information from the Interpreter and the current dialogue, an instance of that ....

Peter A. Heeman, Micahel Johnston, Justin Denney, and Edward Kaiser. Beyond structured dialogues: Factoring out grounding. In Proceedings of ICSLP'98, Sydney, Australia, 1998.

....of meaning. Besides mentioning problems that from the viewpoint of computational linguistics are strongly related to parsing, it should be noticed that the interpretation of utterances in a given discourse should be based on a multi level discourse model as various researchers have shown (e.g. [Hee98], Tra94] TraHin91] This means that the semantics of different parts of an utterance is to be defined by various elements or processes of the discourse model. On the other hand, as noted e.g. by [StrJon98] or [LudGorNie98] a dialogue model combines notions defined in the knowledge base of the ....

P. Heeman et al, Beyond Structured Dialogues: Factoring out Grounding, in: Proceedings of ICSLP 98, Sydney, Australia 1998

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC