Dialogue System Iso 24617 2

ISO 24617-2: A Semantically-based Standard for Dialogue Annotation

Bryan Hang Zhang

Universität des Saarlandes

2014 September

Outline:

• Motivation of building ISO Dialogue Annotation (DA)

• Intro to the Meta Model of DA

• Intro to the DiAML

( Dialogue Makeup language )

• Task: Automatic Annotation Task

2 Universität des Saarlandes

Motivation of ISO Dialogue Annotation Scheme


Definition of dialogue act: 1. Dialogue act evolves from speech act. However, proper definitions and concept of

dialogue act varies.


In reality there is a wide range of taxonomies and inventories about dialogue act.


ISO 24617-2 dialogue act annotation is created

That’s why we need a standard for Dialogue act annotation which is inter-operable so annotated corpora can be reused.


ISO 24617-2 Dialogue Act Annotation

• Based on DIT++ (Dynamic Interpretation Theory) taxonomy.

• Information State Approach:

Dialogue

acts

Information state of participants

UPDATE OPERATION


Medamodel for Dialogue Annotation


(DiAML) the Dialogue Act Markup Language

abstract syntax : specifies the possible annotation

structures in set-theoretical terms;

semantics : specifies the interpretation of the structures defined by the abstract syntax;

concrete syntax : defines an XML representation


Representation Structure (XML)

Annotation structure

Defined Semantics


Dialogue acts


UPDATE OPERATION


Dialogue act

Semantic content Communicative Function

Description of objects, properties, actions.

Specification of how the information states should be

updated with semantic content


Please consider these utterances:

Customer: Is there wifi here?

waitress: No, I’m sorry, there isn’t.

Apology Answer


Dialogue

acts

Semantic content

Communicative Function



…..


Semantic content

Dialogue acts


Communicative Function A Dimension 1

Dimension 2

Dimension 3

Dimension …

9 dimensions are formulated

Communicative Function A




Semantic content

Dialogue acts


Communicative Function A Dimension 1

Dimension 2

Dimension 3

Dimension …

10 dimensions are formulated





Communicative Functions:

Dimension-specific functions

General purpose functions

Specific for a particular dimension

Turn Release function can be specific for Turn Management dimension

Can be applied for all dimension



Minimal unit of dialogue annotation (the raw data)




Functional Segment2

Functional Segment3

Apology Answer

D: TASK

Set question

Functional Segment 1

D: SOCAIL OBLIGATION

D: TASK

DA 1 Dialogue act 1

DA 3 DA 2

Semantic Content

Semantic Content Semantic Content



Minimal unit of dialogue annotation (the raw data)


Qualifiers

• Qualifiers are applicable to general purpose functions(GPFs).

Qualifiers Type Communicative functions

Sentiment qualifiers

Additive Q Accept happily

Conditional qualifiers

Specified Q

e.g. Promise, Offer…

Certainty qualifiers

e.g.Answer, Confirmation…


(un)Certainty Qualifier

Uncertain

certain



ENTITY STRUCTURE

DIALOGUE ACT STRUCTURE


Relations

There are various relations in coherent dialogue: • Functional Dependence Relations • Feedback Dependence Relations • Rhetorical relations


Dependence Relations 1.Functional Dependences

• Functional dependence relations occur with dialogue acts that are responsive in nature.

• Examples: Answer-Question,

Apology- Accept Apology,




Functional Segment2

Functional Segment3

Apology Answer

D: TASK

Set question



D: TASK

DA 1 Dialogue act 1

DA 3 DA 2


fs1 (“Is there an earlier connection?”),

fs2 (“No there isn’t”) fs3 (“I’m sorry”)

• fs2 links to fs1 as the answer to the question, semantic content (No, there isn’t) is also needed for the link.


• Functional dependences is now part of inherent attribute of the a functional segment.

• This justice the intuition that the functional dependence is an inherent part of a responsive dialogue act.

• An Answer cannot exist without a Question

Accept-apology cannot exist without an Apology.




Functional Segment2

Functional Segment3


Dialogue act 1

Dialogue Act 3 Dialogue Act 2


In the past, a separate structure


Now it is a built-in ATTRIBUTE


Dependence Relations 2.Feedback Dependences

• Feedback dependence relation is determined by semantic content of a previous dialogue act.


• Speaker B here is checking the correctness of his perception of what A said, which sounded a bit strange

• (A may be hesitating between Tuesday and Thursday or maybe A was non-native speaker who had difficulty pronouncing ‘th’)


A feedback can be a non-local and distant feedback,


Functional Segment2

Functional Segment3


Dialogue act 1



Rhetorical Relations

Rhetorical Relations are the parts of a coherent text are connected explicitly or implicitly

In other terms such as

‘coherence relations’, or ‘discourse relations’


• A: You keep losing them

• A: They easily slip behind the couch

• A: Where would you position your buttons?

• A: I think that has some impact on many things.

A1 Question Act A2 Inform Act Motivation Relation

Event A1 Event A2 Semantic Causal Relation


Functional Segment2

Functional Segment3


Dialogue act 1



Element->

Attribute->


Universität des Saarlandes 44

DiAML syntax and semantics

DiAML =Dialogue Act Markup Language

define:

• Abstract syntax:

set-theoretical annotation structure

• Concrete syntax:

XML representation of the structure.


Abstract Syntax -Annotation Structure

Linguistic information added to the segments of language data, independent of format



Holds the semantic content

Entity

Dialogue Act Structue Capture the function aspect

α

s


• Entity structures: <s,α> or <s, α, E, δ> • s: functional segment

• α: Dialogue act structure

• E: a set of entity structures (α) that have a

function/ feedback dependence relations • • δ: specifies function or feedback dependence

relation. 49 Universität des Saarlandes


ENTITY STRUCTURE





Functional Segment2

Functional Segment3

Apology Answer

D: TASK

Set question



D: TASK

DA 1 Dialogue act 1

DA 3 DA 2


Dialogue Act Structure

Senders Addressee(S)

Dimension-specific communicative function

General-purpose function

specify dimension

Qualifier


ENTITY STRUCTURE e =


only captures the functional part of the Dialogue act.

Or

Semantics

Structure Interpretation

Complete Dialogue Act Interpretation


• The Semantics of a Dialogue Act Structure

• :interpretation of the entity structure

• :semantic content of the segments

• So


Semantics for a certain class of communicative functions

Functions Update semantics units

F(Answer)=U1∪ U2 ∪ U9 ∪ U7


Semantic Updates units

Information-transfer functions


Functional Part

Semantic Part


An entity structure A non empty set of

entity structures

Rhetorical relations

Entities Link structures

Updates are sequential or unified


Semantics of Dependence Relations and Qualifiers


Concrete Syntax -representation in XML

The format in which annotation is rendered. Independent of content


Conceptual Inventories

Abstract Syntax

Set-theoretical Annotation Structure


Set-theoretical Annotation Structure





Defined Semantics




Un-ambiguity Completeness


Automatic Incremental Annotation

Petukhova and Bunt (2011) report on an incremental, token-based approach to the segmentation and annotation of spoken dialogue, with a focus on the recognition of their communicative functions.


Local Classifiers

Global Classifiers

Communicative functions

AMI input data

features

Dimensions

Five previous and five following tokens


ISO 24617-2 annotation scheme can be effectively used for automatic annotation.

F-scores for incremental token-based recognition of communicative functions.


Conclusion

• The requirement that semantic annotations have a formal semantics was shown to have direct consequences for the design of annotation structures.

• For dialogue act annotation, functional and feedback dependence relations have to be expressed with attributes in the XML elements representing dialogue act structures. This simplifies the representations and make them semantically fully transparent.

• For the ISO standard for dialogue act annotation, this realization came just in time to prevent the proposal of incorrect annotation representations


Reference

• Bunt, H. (2009a) The DIT++ taxonomy for functional dialogue markup. In D. Heylen, C. Pelachaud, R. Catizone and D. Traum (eds.)

• Bunt, H. (2011). The semantics of dialogue acts.

• Traum, D. & S. Larsson (2003) The Information State Approach

to Dialogue Act Management.

• ISO 24617-2: A semantically-based standard for dialogue annotation Harry Bunt*, Jan Alexandersson, Jae-Woong Choe, Alex Chengyu Fang, Koiti Hasida,Volha Petukhova, Andrei Popescu-Belis and David Traum


Thank You! 謝謝大家！ 감사합니다!


Dialogue System Iso 24617 2

Data & Analytics

Transcript of Dialogue System Iso 24617 2