Proceedings of the Workshop on Speech and Natural Language - HLT '91 1992
DOI: 10.3115/1075527.1075543
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Progress report on the Chronus system

Abstract: The speech understanding system we propose in this paper is based on the stochastic modeling of a sentence as a sequence of elemental units that represent its meaning. According to this paradigm, the original meaning of a sentence, can be decoded using a dynamic programming algorithm, although the small amount of training data currently available suggested the integration of the decoder with a more traditional technique. However, the advantage of this method consists in the development of a framework in which … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1992
1992
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(16 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the "Departure Date" slot expressed as the word "tomorrow" has to be normalized to something like "03/11/2013" in order to be useful for searching a flight database. Most ATIS systems employed either a statistical classification approach (those coming from the speech processing community) such as AT&T's CHRONUS [37] and BBN's hidden understanding models [30] or a knowledge-based approach (mostly from the computational linguistics community) such as the MIT's TINA [42], CMU's Phoenix [50], and SRI's Gemini [17].…”
Section: Brief Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, the "Departure Date" slot expressed as the word "tomorrow" has to be normalized to something like "03/11/2013" in order to be useful for searching a flight database. Most ATIS systems employed either a statistical classification approach (those coming from the speech processing community) such as AT&T's CHRONUS [37] and BBN's hidden understanding models [30] or a knowledge-based approach (mostly from the computational linguistics community) such as the MIT's TINA [42], CMU's Phoenix [50], and SRI's Gemini [17].…”
Section: Brief Historymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An early example of a purely statistical approach to semantic parsing is the finite state semantic tagger used in AT&T's CHRONUS system [10]. In this system, utterance generation is modeled by an HMM-like process in which the hidden states correspond to semantic concepts and the state outputs correspond to the individual words.…”
Section: S S P R O T E I N a C T I V A T Ementioning
confidence: 99%
“…The rejection heuristic is based on the measure of success in the operation of template generation (how many decoded concepts are successfully matched to a value), although more sophisticated heuristics can be developed. The results [24] on the complete test set, from text input, account for 68% of correct answers, 18% wrong answers and 14% rejects. When the system was coupled with a speech recognizer through the best first hypothesis, the performance dropped to 52% of correct answers, 26% wrong answers and 22% rejects.…”
Section: Experimental Performancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…I, XXIV, XCIX) and their correspondent decimal representation (e.g. 1,24,99). Fortunately, in a natural language understanding task, we may have the freedom of choosing the semantic representation, like we did in the implementation of CHRONUS explained above.…”
Section: The Sequential Correspondence Assumptionmentioning
confidence: 99%