Generating tailored, comparative descriptions in spoken dialogue

Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference, FLAIRS 2004

Volumn 2, Issue , 2004, Pages 917-922

  Moore, Johanna ^a   Foster, Mary Ellen ^a   Lemon, Oliver ^a   White, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DECISION MAKING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SEMANTICS; STRATEGIC PLANNING; XML;

CONTENT PLANNING; DIALOUGE MANAGEMENT; FLIGHTS; USER PREFERENCES;

INFORMATION ANALYSIS;

EID: 10044296267     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Baker, R. E. 2003. Using unit selection to synthesise contextually appropriate intonation in limited domain synthesis. Master's thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh.
2. Bos, J.; Klein, E.; Lemon, O.; and Oka, T. 2003. DIPPER: Description and formalisation of an information-state update dialogue system architecture. In 4th SIGdial Workshop on Discourse and Dialogue, 115-124.
3. Carberry, S.; Chu-Carroll, J.; and Elzer, S. 1999. Constructing and utilizing a model of user preferences in collaborative consultation dialogues. Computational Intelligence Journal 15(3): 185-217.
4. Carenini, G., and Moore, J. 2000. A strategy for generating evaluative arguments. In Proceedings of INLG-00.
5. Carenini, G., and Moore, J. 2001. An empirical study of the influence of user tailoring on evaluative argument effectiveness. In Proceedings of IJCAI-01.
6. Currie, K., and Tate, A. 1991. O-Plan: the open planning architecture. Artificial Intelligence 52:49-86.
7. Dowding, J.; Gawron, J. M.; Appelt, D.; Bear, J.; Cherny, L.; Moore, R.; and Moran, D. 1993. GEMINI: a natural language system for spoken-language understanding. In Proceedings 31st Annual Meeting of the ACL.
8. Edwards, W., and Barron, F. H. 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60:306-325.
9. Martin, D.; Cheyer, A.; and Moran, D. 1998. Building distributed software systems with the open agent architecture. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology.
10. Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The Phonology and Phonetics of English Intonation. Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.
11. Prevost, S. 1995. A Semantics of Contrast and Information Structure for Specifying Intonation in Spoken Language Generation. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
12. Steedman, M. 2000. Information structure and the syntaxphonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4):649-689.
13. Steedman, M. 2004. Information-structural semantics for English intonation. In Gordon, M.; Büring, D.; and Lee, C., eds., LSA Summer Institute Workshop on Topic and Focus, Santa Barbara July 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer. To appear.
14. Stent, A.; Walker, M.; Whittaker, S.; and Maloor, P. 2002. User-tailored generation for spoken dialogue: An experiment. In Proceedings of ICSLP-02.
15. Taylor, P.; Black, A.; and Caley, R. 1998. The architecture of the the Festival speech synthesis system. In Third International Workshop on Speech Synthesis, Sydney, Australia.
16. Walker, M.; Whittaker, S.; Stent, A.; Maloor, P.; Moore, J.; Johnston, M.; and Vasireddy, G. 2002. Speech-plans: Generating evaluative responses in spoken dialogue. In Proceedings of INLG'02, 73-80.
17. Walker, M. A.; Passonneau, R.; and Boland, J. E. 2001. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of DARPA Communicator spoken dialogue systems. In Proceedings of ACL-01.
18. White, M., and Baldridge, J. 2003. Adapting chart realization to CCG. In Proceedings 0/EWNLG9.