To be writen (workshop summary paper)

Virtual Assistants can be quite literal at times. If the user says “tell Bob I love him,” most virtual assistants will extract the message “I love him” and send it to the user’s contact named Bob, rather than properly converting the message to “I love you.” We designed a system to allow virtual assistants to take a voice message from one user, convert the point of view of the message, and then deliver the result to its target user. We developed a rule-based model, which integrates a linear text classification model, part-of-speech tagging, and constituency parsing with rule-based transformation methods. We also investigated Neural Machine Translation (NMT) approaches, including LSTMs, CopyNet, and T5. We explored 5 metrics to gauge both naturalness and faithfulness automatically, and we chose to use BLEU plus METEOR for faithfulness and relative perplexity using a separately trained language model (GPT) for naturalness. Transformer-Copynet and T5 performed similarly on faithfulness metrics, with T5 achieving slight edge, a BLEU score of 63.8 and a METEOR score of 83.0. CopyNet was the most natural, with a relative perplexity of 1.59. CopyNet also has 37 times fewer parameters than T5. We have publicly released our dataset, which is composed of 46,565 crowd-sourced samples.

Slot-filling, Translation, Intent classification, and Language identification, or STIL, is a newly-proposed task for multilingual Natural Language Understanding (NLU). By performing simultaneous slot filling and translation into a single output language (English in this case), some portion of downstream system components can be monolingual, reducing development and maintenance cost. Results are given using the multilingual BART model (Liu et al., 2020) fine-tuned on 7 languages using the MultiATIS++ dataset. When no translation is performed, mBART’s performance is comparable to the current state of the art system (Cross-Lingual BERT by Xu et al. (2020)) for the languages tested, with better average intent classification accuracy (96.07% versus 95.50%) but worse average slot F1 (89.87% versus 90.81%). When simultaneous translation is performed, average intent classification accuracy degrades by only 1.7% relative and average slot F1 degrades by only 1.2% relative.