Investigation of recurrent-neural-network architectures and learning methods for spoken language understanding
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key problems in spoken language understanding (SLU) is the task of slot filling. In light of the recent success of applying deep neural network technologies in domain detection and intent identification, we carried out an in-depth investigation on the use of recurrent neural networks for the more difficult task of slot filling involving sequence discrimination. In this work, we implemented and compared several important recurrent-neural-network architectures, including the Elman-type and Jordan-type recurrent networks and their variants. To make the results easy to reproduce and compare, we implemented these networks on the common Theano neural network toolkit, and evaluated them on the ATIS benchmark. We also compared our results to a conditional random fields (CRF) baseline. Our results show that on this task, both types of recurrent networks outperform the CRF baseline substantially, and a bi-directional Jordantype network that takes into account both past and future dependencies among slots works best, outperforming a CRFbased baseline by 14% in relative error reduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it