F: Right .
D: So , why not ?
D: Sure .
D: That was it ?
F: That was it .
F: Just , what do we do with digits ?
D: OK .
F: We have so many of them , and it 'd be nice to actually do something with them .
D: Well , we we we wanna have them .
I: You mean there 're more than ten ?
D: Yeah , I F: Anything else ?
F: Your mike is a little low there .
D: I in Berkeley , yeah .
D: So , uh You you have to go a little early ,
D: right ?
I: Well , I can stay till about , uh , three forty .
D: At twenty D: Alright .
D: So le let 's make sure we do the ones that that , uh , saved you .
I: Yeah .
I: Mm - hmm .
D: So there was some Uh  In in Adam 's agenda list ,
D: he had something from you about segmentation this last recognition ?
I: Well , yeah .
I: So this is just partly to inform everybody , um , and and of course to get , um , input .
F: Oops .
I: Um , so , <nonvocalsound> uh , we had a discussion Don and Liz and I had discussion last week about how to proceed with , uh , you know , with Don 's work ,
E: Ch
I: and  and and , uh , one of the obvious things that occur to us was that we 're since we now have Thilo 's segmenter and it works , you know , amazingly well , um , we should actually basically re - evaluate the recognition , um , results using you know , without cheating on the segmentations .
I: And , that should be fairly E: So E: And how do we find the transcripts for those so that ?
E: Yeah .
I: Oh , OK .
E: The references for for those segments ?
I: So , there 's actually E: It 's not that I: Why do you ask ?
F: I could I: No , actually , um , NIST has , um m a fairly sophisticated scoring program that you can give a , um  a time ,
G: Well F: Hand ones .
E: OK .
I: uh You know , you basically just give two time - marked sequences of words , and it computes the um the , <comment> uh <comment> you know , the the th
B: It does all the work for you .
I: it does all the work for you .
B: Yeah .
E: OK .
I: So , it we just and we use that actually in Hub - five to do the scoring .
I: Um . So what we 've been using so far was sort of a simplified version of the scoring .
I: And we can we can handle the the the type of problem we have here .
I: So , we ha
E: So , basically you give some time constraints for for the references and for for the hypothesis ,
I: Yeah .
I: Right .
I: Right .
E: and G: Yeah .
G: Maybe the start of your speech and the end of it ,
E: Yeah , OK .
I: So do
G: or stuff like that .
E: OK .
I: Right .
I: It does time - constrained word - alignment .
E: OK .
I: So .
I: So that should be possible .
I: I mean that shouldn't be a problem .
I: Uh , so that was the one thing ,
I: and the other was that ,
I: um I: What was the other problem ?
I: Oh !
I: That Thilo wanted to use the recognizer alignments to train up his , um , speech detector .
E: Yeah .
I: Um , so that we could use , uh you know there wouldn't be so much hand labelling needed to , uh to generate training data for for the speech detector .
E: Yeah .
E: I 'm just in progress of of doing that .
E: So .
I: And I think you 're in the process of doing that .
I: So , you can <comment> you can E: Yeah .
B: It 'll give you a lot more data , too .
B: Won't it ?
E: Yeah .
E: So , it 's basically E: s
E: I think , eight meetings or something which which I 'm using ,
E: and , it 's  before it was twenty minutes of one meeting .
I: Mm - hmm .
E: So should <comment> be a little bit better .
I: Right .
I: That won't be perfect the alignments aren't perfect ,
B: Great .
E: Yeah .
I: but , um , it 's probably still better to have all this extra data , than E: But G: Yeah .
E: Yeah .
E: Yep .
I: Yeah .
E: We 'll see that .
I: Yeah .
D: OK .
G: Actually , I had a question about that .
G: If you find that you can lower the false alarms that you get where there 's no speech , that would be useful for us to know .
G: So , um E: There were the false alarms .
G: Yeah .
G: So , r right now you get f fal you know , false false , uh , speech regions when it 's just like , um , breath or something like that ,
E: OK .
E: Yeah .
G: and I 'd be interested to know the wha if you retrain
E: Yep .
G: um ,
E: Yeah .
G: do those actually go down or not ?
G: Because of E: Yeah .
E: I 'll can make an can , like , make a c comparison of of the old system to the to the new one ,
G: Yeah , just to see if by doing nothing in the modeling of just having that training data wh what happens .
E: and then E: Yeah .
E: Yeah .
E: Yep .
D: Um another one that we had on Adam 's agenda that definitely involved you was s something about SmartKom ?
F: Right .
F: So , Rob Porzel F: eh , Porzel ?
F: and the , uh Porzel and the , uh , SmartKom group are collecting some dialogues .
I: Porzel .
I: Porzel .
F: Basically they have one person sitting in here , looking at a picture , and a wizard sitting in another room somewhere .
F: And , uh , they 're doing a travel task .
F: And , uh , it involves starting I believe starting with a F: It 's it 's always the wizard ,
F: but it starts where the wizard is pretending to be a computer and it goes through a , uh , speech generation system .
E: Yeah .
E: Actually , it 's changed to a synthesis for for the first part now .
F: Synthesis system .
E: Yeah .
F: Um , and then , it goes to a real wizard and they 're evaluating that .
F: And they wanted to use this equipment , and so the w question came up , is F: well , here 's some more data .
F: Should this be part of the corpus or not ?
F: And my attitude was yes , because there might be people who are using this corpus for acoustics , as opposed to just for language .
F: Um , or also for dialogue of various sorts .
F: Um , so it 's not a meeting .
F: Right ?
F: Because it 's two people and they 're not face to face .
D: Wait a minute .
E: Yeah .
D: So , I just wanted to understand it , cuz I I 'm uh , hadn't quite followed this process .
D: Um . So , it 's wizard in the sen usual sense that the person who is asking the questions doesn't know that it 's , uh , a machi not a machine ?
I: Right .
I: Actually actually , w w the the We do this F: At the beginning .
I: I dunno who came up with it , but I think it 's a really clever idea .
I: We simulate a computer breakdown halfway through the session , and so then after that , the person 's told that they 're now talking to a , uh to a human .
D: Yeah .
E: It 's a human operator .
E: Yeah .
D: Yeah .
F: But of course they don't know that it 's the same person both times .
I: So , we we collect we collect both human - computer and human - human data , essentially , in the same session .
D: You might wanna try collecting it the other way around sometime , saying that th the computer isn't up yet
A: Hmm .
D: and then so then you can separate it out whether it 's the beginning or end kind of effects .
I: That 's an idea .
D: But ,
F: Yep .
D: yeah .
I: Yeah .
A: That 's a good idea .
F: " I have to go now .
F: You can talk to the computer . "
B: It 's a lot more believable , too ,
F: " No ! "
B: if you tell them that they 're the computer part is running on a Windows machine .
B: And the whole breakdown thing kinda makes sense .
I: O
I: Just just reboot it .
F: Abort F: abort , retry , fail ?
G: So did they actually save the far - field data ?
G: Cuz at first they weren't they weren't sa
F: Well , this was this was the question .
E: Yes .
I: Yeah .
F: So so they were saying they were not going to ,
E: Yeah .
G: OK .
F: and I said , " well that 's silly , if if we 're gonna try to do it for a corpus , there might be people who are interested in acoustics . "
G: Yeah .
I: Wow .
E: No .
G: Or E: projector <comment> We were not saying we are not doing it .
G: Yeah .
D: S
I: No , the the question is do we save one or two far - field channels or all of them ?
E: We wer we just wanted to do G: Right .
E: Yeah .
E: Yeah .
F: I I see no reason not to do all of them .
F: That that if we have someone who is doing acoustic studies , uh , it 's nice to have the same for every recording .
D: Um G: Nnn .
I: Hmm .
G: Yeah .
D: So , what is the purpose of this recording ?
I: Mm - hmm .
D: This is to get acoustic and language model training data for SmartKom. OK .
I: It 's to be traini to b training data and development data for the SmartKom system .
E: The English system ?
I: Yeah .
E: Yeah .
I: Right .
I: Right .
B: Where does this ?
G: Maybe we can have him vary the microphones , too ,
D: Well ,
G: or they 're different s speakers .
E: B
F: Right .
F: So so so for their usage , they don't need anything .
D: so why not ?
E: Yeah .
E: But but I 'm not sure about the legal aspect of of that .
F: Right ?
E: Is is there some contract with SmartKom or something about the data ?
I: Yeah .
E: What they E: or , is is that our data which we are collecting here ,
D: We 've never signed anything that said that we couldn't use anything that we did .
E: or ?
E: OK .
E: OK .
I: We weren't supposed to collect any data .
E: So .
E: OK .
I: This was all D: Yeah .
E: So . Yeah , th th that was the question .
E: If if ?
E: Yeah .
I: Yeah .
E: Basically .
D: No that 's not a problem .
D: I L look , it seems to me that if we 're doing it anyway and we 're doing it for these these purposes that we have , and we have these distant mikes , we definitely should re should save it all as long as we 've got disk space ,
I: Mm - hmm .
D: and disk is pretty cheap .
I: OK .
D: So should we save it ?
F: And then D: Now th
D: Yeah .
D: So we save it because it 's it it 's potentially useful .
F: Right .
D: And now , what do we do with it is is a s separate question .
D: I mean , anybody who 's training something up could choose to put it eh , to u include this or not .
I: Right .
D: I I would not say it was part of the meetings corpus .
D: It isn't .
D: But it 's some other data we have ,
D: and if somebody doing experiment wants to train up including that then they can .
I: Mm - hmm .
D: Right ?
F: So it 's It it I guess it the begs the question of what is the meeting corpus .
F: So if , at UW they start recording two - person hallway conversations is that part of the meeting corpus ?
D: I think it 's I I think I th think the idea of two or more people conversing with one another is key .
F: Well , this has two or more people conversing with each other .
D: Nnn , well
E: Yeah .
F: They 're just not face to face .
G: What if we just give it a a name like we give these meetings a name ?
A: Well this D: No , it doesn't .
D: Right ?
D: It has F: I mean , that was my intention .
G: And then later on some people will consider it a meeting and some people won't ,
D: Yeah .
F: That was my intention .
A: Well this G: and F: So so s so part of the reason that I wanted to bring this up is , do we wanna handle it as a special case or do we wanna fold it in ,
G: Just give it a title .
A: Oh .
D: I think it is a s
F: we give everyone who 's involved as their own user ID , give it session I Ds , let all the tools that handle Meeting Recorder handle it , or do we wanna special case it ?
F: And if we were gonna special case it , who 's gonna do that ?
I: Well , it it makes sense to handle it with the same infrastructure , since we don't want to duplicate things unnecessarily .
E: So .
E: It it it A: I think I: But as far as distributing it , we shouldn't label it as part of this meeting corpus .
I: We should let it be its own corp
D: Yeah .
F: I don't see why not .
A: Well it 's it well , because F: It 's just a different topic .
A: I ha I have an extra point , which is the naturalness issue .
A: Because we have , like , meetings that have a reason .
A: That 's one of the reasons that we were talking about this .
A: And and those and this sounds like it 's more of an experimental setup .
D: Yeah .
D: It 's scenario - based , it 's it 's human - computer interface  it 's really pretty different .
A: It 's got a different purpose .
D: But I I I have no problem with somebody folding it in for some experiment they 're gonna do ,
A: Yeah .
D: but I don't think i it it doesn't match anything that we 've described about meetings .
F: Mm - hmm .
D: Whereas everything that we talked about them doing at at UW and so forth really does .
F: OK .
D: They 're actually talking F: So w so what does that mean for how we are gonna organize things ?
A: Hmm .
E: Yeah .
D: You can you can D: Again , as as I think Andreas was saying , if you wanna use the same tools and the same conventions , there 's no problem with that .
D: It 's just that it 's , you know , different directory , it 's called something different , it 's D: you know .
D: It is different .
D: You can't just fold it in as if it 's D: I mean , digits are different , too .
D: Right ?
I: It might also be potentially confusing .
F: Yeah , but those are folded in ,
F: and it 's just you just mark the transcripts differently .
F: So so one option is you fold it in ,
I: Right .
F: and just simply in the file you mark somewhere that this is this type of interaction , rather than another type of interaction .
I: Yeah , I th
D: Well , I don I wouldn't call reading digits " meetings " .
D: Right ?
D: I mean , we we we were doing F: Well , but but , I put it under the same directory tree .
F: You know , it 's in " user doctor speech data MR " .
D: Well G: Can we just have a directory called , like , " other stuff " ?
G: And F: Other .
G: Well or , I dunno .
D: I mean , I don't care what directory tree you have it under .
G: And  and just , um , store it there .
D: Right ?
D: I mean that 's just a F: OK .
F: My preference is to have a single procedure so that I don't have to think too much about things .
I: Yes .
G: I mean F: And , just have a marking .
D: Yeah .
F: If we do it any other way that means that we need a separate procedure , and someone has to do that .
D: O - You you can use whatever procedure you want that 's p convenient for you .
D: All I 'm saying is that there 's no way that we 're gonna tell people that reading digits is meetings .
F: Right .
D: And similarly we 're not gonna tell them that someone talking to a computer to get travel information is meetings .
D: Those aren't meetings .
D: But if it makes it easier for you to pu fold them in the same procedures and have them under the same directory tree , knock yourself out .
D: You know ?
B: There 's a couple other questions that I have too ,
B: and and one of them is , what about , uh , consent issues ?
B: And the other one is , what about transcription ?
E: Transcription is done in Munich .
B: Are ?
B: OK .
B: So we don't have to worry about transcribing it ?
E: Yeah .
D: Alright .
F: So , w we will hafta worry about format .
I: That 's a that 's another argument to keep it separate ,
I: because it 's gonna follow the SmartKom transcription conventions and not the ICSI meeting transcription conventions .
F: Oh , OK .
E: Yeah .
D: Ah .
F: OK .
F: Well , I didn't realize that .
D: Good point .
F: That 's that 's a D: Good point .
D: But I 'm sure no one would have a problem with our folding it in for some acoustic modeling or or some things .
D: Um .
D: Do we h do we have , uh , um , American - born folk , uh , reading German German , uh , pla uh , place names and so forth ?
E: Yeah .
D: Is that ?
I: Exactly .
F: Yep .
E: Yeah .
D: Yeah , great .
I: Yeah .
F: They they even have a reading list .
B: I bet that sounds good ,
F: It 's pretty funny .
D: Yeah .
B: huh ?
I: Yeah .
E: You can do that if you want .
D: Yeah .
B: OK .
I: Yeah .
B: I dunno if you want that .
D: Right .
F: So A: Hmm .
D: Heidelberg
I: Exactly
F: Disk might eventually be an issue so we might we we might need to , uh , get some more disk pretty soon .
I: Do you wanna be a subject ?
D: Yeah , I be pretty good .
I: We I: Yeah .
F: We 're about we 're about half halfway through our disk right now .
I: That was one of our concerns .
B: Yeah .
B: Are we only half ?
B: I thought we were more than that .
F: We 're probably a little more than that because we 're using up some space that we shouldn't be on .
F: So , once everything gets converted over to the disks we 're supposed to be using we 'll be probably , uh , seventy - five percent .
B: Well , when I was looking for space for Thilo , I found one disk that had , uh , I think it was nine gigs and another one had seventeen .
F: Yep .
B: And everything else was sorta committed .
B: Uh F: Were those backed - up or non - backed - up ?
B: Those were non - backed - up .
E: Non - back - up .
F: Right .
F: So that 's different .
B: S
B: oh , you 're talking about backed - up .
F: I 'm much more concerned about the backed - up .
F: The non - backed - up ,
B: I haven't looked to see how much of that we have .
F: yeah ,
F: i is cheap .
F: I mean , if we need to we can buy a disk , hang it off a s uh , workstation .
F: If it 's not backed - up the sysadmins don't care too much .
D: Yeah .
D: So , I mean , pretty much anytime we need a disk , we can get it at the rate that we 're I: You can I: I shouldn't be saying this , but , you can just you know , since the back - ups are every night , you can recycle the backed - up diskspace .
F: Yeah .
F: But that 's that 's  that 's risky .
D: Yeah . You really shouldn't be saying F: Mmm .
I: I didn't say that .
F: Mmm .
F: Yeah , that 's right .
I: I didn't say that .
F: Beep that out .
D: Da - we had allowed Dave to listen to these  these , uh , recordings .
I: Right .
D: Um  Yeah ,
D: I me and there 's been this conversation going on about getting another file server ,
D: and and we can do that .
I: Mm - hmm .
D: We 'll take the opportunity and get another big raft of  of disk , I guess .
F: Yeah .
I: Well , I think <comment> I think there 's an argument for having you know , you could use our old file server for for disks that have data that is very rarely accessed ,