Comparing meeting browsers using a task-based evaluation method

Information access within meeting recordings, potentially transcribed and augmented with other media, is facilitated by the use of meeting browsers. To evaluate their performance through a shared benchmark task, users are asked to discriminate between true and false parallel statements about facts in meetings, using different browsers. This paper offers a review of the results obtained so far with five types of meeting browsers, using similar sets of statements over the same meeting recordings. The results indicate that state-of-the-art speed for true/false question answering is 1.5-2 minutes per question, and precision is 70%-80% (vs. 50% random guess). The use of ASR compared to manual transcripts, or the use of audio signals only, lead to a perceptible though not dramatic decrease in performance scores.

[1]  Roger K. Moore,et al.  Handbook of Multimodal and Spoken Dialogue Systems: Resources, Terminology and Product Evaluation , 2000 .

[2]  Julio Gonzalo,et al.  Overview of the CLEF 2005 Interactive Track , 2005, CLEF.

[3]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Design and evaluation of systems to support interaction capture and retrieval , 2008, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[4]  Miroslav Melichar,et al.  Design of multimodal dialogue-based systems , 2008 .

[5]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  The TREC-8 Question Answering Track Evaluation , 2000, TREC.

[6]  Maurizio Rigamonti,et al.  Browsing Multimedia Archives Through Intra- and Multimodal Cross-Documents Links , 2005, MLMI.

[7]  Jean Carletta,et al.  The AMI Meeting Corpus: A Pre-announcement , 2005, MLMI.

[8]  Mike Flynn,et al.  Browsing Recorded Meetings with Ferret , 2004, MLMI.

[9]  Wessel Kraaij,et al.  Experimental Comparison of Multimodal Meeting Browsers , 2007, HCI.

[10]  Andrei Popescu-Belis,et al.  Towards an Objective Test for Meeting Browsers: The BET4TQB Pilot Experiment , 2007, MLMI.

[11]  Ellen M. Voorhees,et al.  Overview of the TREC 2004 Novelty Track. , 2005 .

[12]  Andrei Popescu-Belis,et al.  TQB: Accessing Multimodal Data Using a Transcript-based Query and Browsing Interface , 2006, LREC.

[13]  Ellen M Voorhees Question answering in TREC , 2001, CIKM '01.

[14]  Andrei Popescu-Belis,et al.  User Query Analysis for the Specification and Evaluation of a Dialogue Processing and Retrieval System , 2004, LREC.

[15]  Stéphane Marchand-Maillet,et al.  The IM2 Multimodal Meeting Browser Family , 2005 .

[16]  Martin Rajman,et al.  Archivus: A Multimodal System for Multimedia Meeting Browsing and Retrieval , 2006, ACL.

[17]  Khalid Choukri,et al.  The CHIL audiovisual corpus for lecture and meeting analysis inside smart rooms , 2007, Lang. Resour. Evaluation.

[18]  Marilyn A. Walker,et al.  PARADISE: A Framework for Evaluating Spoken Dialogue Agents , 1997, ACL.

[19]  Niels Ole Bernsen,et al.  Evaluation and usability of multimodal spoken language dialogue systems , 2004, Speech Commun..

[20]  Andreas Stolcke,et al.  The ICSI Meeting Corpus , 2003, 2003 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 2003. Proceedings. (ICASSP '03)..

[21]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  A meeting browser evaluation test , 2005, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[22]  Anton Nijholt,et al.  Online and off-line visualization of meeting information and meeting support , 2006, The Visual Computer.

[23]  Steve Whittaker,et al.  Accessing Multimodal Meeting Data: Systems, Problems and Possibilities , 2004, MLMI.