Automatic interpreting system, automatic interpreting method, and program for automatic interpreting

• US 20020032561A1
• Filed: 09/07/2001
• Published: 03/14/2002
• Est. Priority Date: 09/11/2000
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: NEC Corporation
• Original Assignee: NEC Corporation
• Inventors: Ishikawa, Kai, Ando, Shinichi, Okumura, Akitoshi
• Granted Patent: US 7,219,050 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 704/3
• CPC Class Codes: G10L 15/1822 Parsing for meaning understanding

Abstract

An automatic interpreting system, having at least an inputting unit for inputting utterances, an interpreting unit for recognizing the input utterance and interpreting the input utterance into a specified language, and an outputting unit for outputting interpretation results, includes a conversation history managing part for determining the level of interpretation reliability by calculating a value of validity based on the interpretation result, inputting the level of interpretation understanding as the receiving-side speaker'"'"'s subjective evaluation of how well he or she can grasp the meaning of the interpretation result, and recording and holding these data as interpretation history information, and a conversation status determination processing unit for, if the interpretation of an utterance is not understandable to the receiving party, determining the conversation status by way of finding an applicable category among the pre-determined categories based on the levels of interpretation reliability and interpretation understanding for the previous utterance that are stored in said interpretation history managing unit, and a recommended action presenting part for presenting to the speaker, as recommended actions, pre-determined actions for the conversation status.

Claims

1. An automatic interpreting system having at least an inputting means for inputting utterances, an interpreting means for recognizing the input utterance and interpreting the input utterance into a specified language, and an outputting means for outputting interpretation results, comprising:

means for determining the validity of the interpretation result of the input utterance to obtain interpretation reliability;

means for allowing the receiving-side speaker to input as the level of interpretation understanding how well he or she can grasp the meaning of the interpretation result;

conversation history managing means for recording and holding, as interpretation history information, said level of interpretation reliability and said level of interpretation understanding for each of said utterance; and

conversation status determination processing means for, if the interpretation of an utterance is not understandable to the receiving party, determining the conversation status based on said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and the previous utterance that are stored in said interpretation history managing means.

2. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, comprising:

recommended action presenting means for presenting to the speaker, as recommended actions, pre-determined actions for the conversation status determined by said conversation status determination processing means.

3. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories.

4. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, comprising

recommended action presenting means for presenting to the speaker, as recommended actions, pre-determined actions for the conversation status determined by said conversation status determination processing means, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories.

5. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 3, wherein

if said interpretation reliability is categorized into two values, high and low, and said interpretation understanding is categorized into two values, clear and unclear, and if said interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, conversation status is determined to be that a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, and

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, or if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

low” and

the value of said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance is “

clear,”

conversation status is determined to be that an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance.

6. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, wherein

actions to be presented by said recommended action presenting means are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

7. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, comprising

recommended action presenting means for presenting to the speaker, as recommended actions, pre-determined actions for the conversation status determined by said conversation status determination processing means, wherein

actions to be presented by said recommended action presenting means are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

8. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories, and

actions to be presented by said recommended action presenting means are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

9. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 1, wherein

assuming that said interpretation reliability is categorized into two values, high and low, and said interpretation understanding is categorized into two values, clear and unclear, and if said interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, conversation status is determined to be that a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, and

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, or if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

low” and

the value of said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance is “

clear,”

conversation status is determined to be that an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance, and

actions to be presented by said recommended action presenting means are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

10. The automatic translation system as set forth in claim 6, wherein

in conversation between a speaker using the first language and another speaker using the second language,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the second language “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

request re-utterance from second speaker”

is presented by said recommended action presenting means,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the value of said interpretation reliability for the previous utterance in the second language is “

high,”

or if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

first speaker re-utters” and

“

first speaker checks recognition”

are presented by said recommended action presenting means,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the first language “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

first speaker re-utters”

is presented by said recommended action presenting means, and

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the value of said interpretation reliability for the previous utterance in the first language is “

high,”

or if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the first language are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

second speaker re-utters,”

“

second speaker checks recognition,”

“

first speaker looks up dictionary”

, and “

first speaker selects next translation candidate”

are presented by said recommended action presenting means.

11. An automatic interpreting method for recognizing an input utterance, interpreting the input utterance into a specified language, and outputting an interpretation result, comprising the steps of:

determining the validity of the interpretation result of said input utterance to obtain the level of interpretation reliability, and allowing the receiving-side speaker to input as the level of interpretation understanding how well he or she can grasp the meaning of the interpretation result,

recording and holding, as interpretation history information, said level of interpretation reliability and said level of interpretation understanding for each of said utterance, and

if the interpretation of an utterance is not understandable to the receiving party, determining the conversation status based on said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and the previous utterance that are stored in said interpretation history managing means.

12. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

pre-determined actions according to said conversation status are presented to the speaker as recommended actions.

13. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for said utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories.

14. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

pre-determined actions for said conversation status are presented to the speaker as recommended actions, and

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories.

15. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories,

assuming that said interpretation reliability is categorized into two values, high and low, and said interpretation understanding is categorized into two values, clear and unclear, and if said interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, conversation status is determined to be that a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, and

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, or if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

low” and

the value of said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance is “

clear,”

conversation status is determined to be that an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance.

16. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

pre-determined actions for said conversation status are presented to the speaker as recommended actions, and

actions to be presented as recommended actions are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

17. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories, and

actions to be presented as recommended actions are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

18. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 11, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories,

assuming that said interpretation reliability is categorized into two values, high and low, and said interpretation understanding is categorized into two values, clear and unclear, and if said interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, conversation status is determined to be that a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance,

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, or if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

low” and

the value of said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance is “

clear,”

conversation status is determined to be that an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance, and

actions to be presented by said recommended action presenting means are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

19. The automatic interpreting method as set forth in claim 16, wherein

in conversation between a speaker using the first language and another speaker using the second language,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the second language “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

request re-utterance from second speaker”

is presented by said recommended action presenting means,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the value of said interpretation reliability for the previous utterance in the second language is “

high,”

or if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

first speaker re-utters” and

“

first speaker checks recognition”

are presented by said recommended action presenting means,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the first language “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

first speaker re-utters”

is presented by said recommended action presenting means, and

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the value of said interpretation reliability for the previous utterance in the first language is “

high,”

or if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the first language are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

second speaker re-utters,”

“

second speaker checks recognition,”

“

first speaker looks up dictionary”

, and “

first speaker selects next translation candidate”

are presented by said recommended action presenting means.

20. An automatic translation program for recognizing an input utterance, interpreting the input utterance into a specified language, and outputting an interpretation result, comprising the functions of:

determining the validity of the interpretation result of said input utterance to obtain the level of interpretation reliability, and allowing the receiving-side speaker to input as the level of interpretation understanding how well he or she can grasp the meaning of the interpretation result,

recording and holding, as interpretation history information, said level of interpretation reliability and said level of interpretation understanding for each of said utterance, and

if the interpretation of an utterance is not understandable to the receiving party, determining the conversation status based on said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and the previous utterance that are stored in said interpretation history managing means.

21. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

pre-determined actions according to said conversation status are presented to the speaker as recommended actions.

22. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for said utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories.

23. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

pre-determined actions for said conversation status are presented to the speaker as recommended actions, and

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories.

24. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories,

assuming that said interpretation reliability is categorized into two values, high and low, and said interpretation understanding is categorized into two values, clear and unclear, and if said interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, conversation status is determined to be that a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, and

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, or if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

low” and

the value of said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance is “

clear,”

conversation status is determined to be that an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance.

25. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

pre-determined actions for said conversation status are presented to the speaker as recommended actions, and

actions to be presented as recommended actions are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

26. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories, and

actions to be presented as recommended actions are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

27. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 20, wherein

if the level of interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

not understandable,”

the current conversation status is determined, i.e., whether an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance or a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance, by putting the combinations of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for said utterance and for the previous utterance in contrast with the pre-determined categories,

assuming that said interpretation reliability is categorized into two values, high and low, and said interpretation understanding is categorized into two values, clear and unclear, and if said interpretation understanding for an utterance is “

unclear,”

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, conversation status is determined to be that a misunderstanding has occurred in the interpretation result of the previous utterance,

if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

high” and

the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, or if the value of said interpretation reliability for said utterance is “

low” and

the value of said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance is “

clear,”

conversation status is determined to be that an error has occurred in the interpretation result of said utterance, and

actions to be presented by said recommended action presenting means are selected from options, including requesting re-utterance, re-uttering, requesting check of recognition, looking up dictionary, and selecting next translation candidate.

28. The automatic interpreting program as set forth in claim 25, wherein

in conversation between a speaker using the first language and another speaker using the second language,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the second language “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

request re-utterance from second speaker”

is presented by said recommended action presenting means,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the value of said interpretation reliability for the previous utterance in the second language is “

high,”

or if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the first language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

first speaker re-utters” and

“

first speaker checks recognition”

are presented by said recommended action presenting means,

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the first language “

low” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

first speaker re-utters”

is presented by said recommended action presenting means, and

if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

low” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the value of said interpretation reliability for the previous utterance in the first language is “

high,”

or if the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the current utterance in the second language are “

high” and

“

unclear,”

respectively, and the values of said interpretation reliability and said interpretation understanding for the previous utterance in the first language are “

high” and

“

clear,”

respectively, “

second speaker re-utters,”

“

second speaker checks recognition,”

“

first speaker looks up dictionary”

, and “

first speaker selects next translation candidate”

are presented by said recommended action presenting means.