Weighted Semantic Parsing: A Robust Approach to Interpretation of Natural Language Queries

  • Afzal Ballim
  • Vincenzo Pallotta
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Soft Computing book series (AINSC, volume 7)


This paper focuses on a grammar-based approach to semantic interpretation, which combines the notions of robust and weighted parsing. In restricted domains of application in information extraction and natural language speech based information systems this approach shows acceptable performance. We present an overview of our research carried out within the recent project ISIS (Interaction through Speech with Information Systems) where techniques based on the above notions have been applied.


Dialogue System Lexical Knowledge Confidence Factor Semantic Module Speak Dialogue System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dario Albesano, Paolo Baggia, Morena Danieli, Roberto Gemello, Elisabetta Gerbino, and Claudio Rullent. Dialogos: a robust system for human-machine spoken dialogue on the telephoné. In Proc. of ICASSP, Munich, Germany, 1997.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.F. Allen, B. Miller, E. Ringger, and T. Sikorski. A robust system for natural spoken dialogue. In Proc. 34th Meeting of the Assoc. for Computational Linguistics. Association of Computational Linguistics, June 1996.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.M. Andersen, G. Caloz, and H. Bourlard. Swisscom “advanced vocal interfaces services” project. Technical Report COM-97–06, IDIAP, Martigny, December 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Peter. R.J. Asveld. Towards robustness in parsing–fuzzifying context-free language recognition. In J. Dassow, G. Rozemberg, and A. Salomaa, editors, Developments in Language Theory II–At the Crossroad of Mathematics, Computer Science and Biology, pages 443–453. World Scientific, Singapore, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Ballim and V. Pallotta. Extended definite clause grammars for robust text analysis. Technical report, Swiss National Science Foundation, February 2000. “pallotta/ Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Ballim and G. Russell. LHIP: Extended DCGs for Configurable Robust Parsing. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 501–507, Kyoto, Japan, 1994. ACL.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Basili and Pazienza M.T. Lexical acquisitiion and information extraction. In Pazienza M.T., editor, Information Extraction - A multidiciplinary approach to an ermerging information technology, volume 1299 of LNAI, pages 44–72. Springer Verlag, 1997.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manuela Boros, Gerhard Hanrieder, and Ulla Ackermann. Linguistic processing for spoken dialogue systems - experiences made in the syslid project -. In Proceedings of the third CRIM-FORWISS Workshop, Montreal, Canada, 1996.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Brogi and F. Turini. Meta-logic for program composition: Semantic issues. In K.R. Apt and F.Turini, editors, Meta-Logics and Logic Programming. The MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.-C. Chappelier and M. Rajman. A generalized cyk algorithm for parsing stochastic cfg. In 1st Workshop on Tabulation in Parsing and Deduction (TAPD98), pages 133–137, Paris, April 2–3 1998.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J-C. Chappelier, M. Rajman, P. Bouillon, S. Armstrong, V. Pallotta, and A Ballim. ISIS project: final report. Technical report, Computer Science Department - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, September 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Grefenstette. Light parsing as finite-state filtering. In Kornai A., editor, Proceedings of the ECAI 96 Workshop on Extended Finite State Models of Language, pages 20–25, 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Hanrieder and G Görz. Robust parsing of spoken dialogue using contextual knowledge and recognition probabilities. In Proceedings of the ESCA Tutorial and Research Workshop on Spoken Dialogue Systems–Theories and Applications, pages 57–60, Denmark, May 1995.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S. Jekat, A. Klein, E. Maier, I. Maleck, M. Mast, and J.J. Quantz. Dialogue acts in vermobil. Verbmobil Report 65, DFKI, 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Kompe, A. Kiebling, T. Kuhn, M. Mast, H. Niemann, E. Nöth, K. Ott, and A. Batliner. Prosody takes over: A pros9dically guided dialog system. Verbmobil report 47, DFKI, 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    E.T. Lee and L.A. Zadeh. Note on fuzzy languages. Information Science, 1: 421–434, 1969.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Lieske and A. Ballim. Rethinking natural language processing with prolog. In Proceedings of Practical Applications of Prolog and Practical Applications of Constraint Technology (PAPPACTS98),London,UK, 1998. Practical Application Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Afzal Ballim
    • 1
  • Vincenzo Pallotta
    • 1
  1. 1.LITH-MEDIA groupÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations