Mixing Snapshots and Fast Time Integration of PDEs

A local proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) plus Galerkin projection method was recently developed to accelerate time dependent numerical solvers of PDEs. This method is based on the combined use of a numerical code (NC) and a Galerkin sys- tem (GS) in a sequence of interspersed time intervals, INC and IGS, respectively. POD is performed on some sets of snapshots calculated by the numerical solver in the INC inter- vals. The governing equations are Galerkin projected onto the most energetic POD modes and the resulting GS is time integrated in the next IGS interval. The major computa- tional e®ort is associated with the snapshots calculation in the ¯rst INC interval, where the POD manifold needs to be completely constructed (it is only updated in subsequent INC intervals, which can thus be quite small). As the POD manifold depends only weakly on the particular values of the parameters of the problem, a suitable library can be con- structed adapting the snapshots calculated in other runs to drastically reduce the size of the ¯rst INC interval and thus the involved computational cost. The strategy is success- fully tested in (i) the one-dimensional complex Ginzburg-Landau equation, including the case in which it exhibits transient chaos, and (ii) the two-dimensional unsteady lid-driven cavity problem

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web

OntoTag - A Linguistic and Ontological Annotation Model Suitable for the Semantic Web 1. INTRODUCTION. LINGUISTIC TOOLS AND ANNOTATIONS: THEIR LIGHTS AND SHADOWS Computational Linguistics is already a consolidated research area. It builds upon the results of other two major ones, namely Linguistics and Computer Science and Engineering, and it aims at developing computational models of human language (or natural language, as it is termed in this area). Possibly, its most well-known applications are the different tools developed so far for processing human language, such as machine translation systems and speech recognizers or dictation programs. These tools for processing human language are commonly referred to as linguistic tools. Apart from the examples mentioned above, there are also other types of linguistic tools that perhaps are not so well-known, but on which most of the other applications of Computational Linguistics are built. These other types of linguistic tools comprise POS taggers, natural language parsers and semantic taggers, amongst others. All of them can be termed linguistic annotation tools. Linguistic annotation tools are important assets. In fact, POS and semantic taggers (and, to a lesser extent, also natural language parsers) have become critical resources for the computer applications that process natural language. Hence, any computer application that has to analyse a text automatically and ‘intelligently’ will include at least a module for POS tagging. The more an application needs to ‘understand’ the meaning of the text it processes, the more linguistic tools and/or modules it will incorporate and integrate. However, linguistic annotation tools have still some limitations, which can be summarised as follows: 1. Normally, they perform annotations only at a certain linguistic level (that is, Morphology, Syntax, Semantics, etc.). 2. They usually introduce a certain rate of errors and ambiguities when tagging. This error rate ranges from 10 percent up to 50 percent of the units annotated for unrestricted, general texts. 3. Their annotations are most frequently formulated in terms of an annotation schema designed and implemented ad hoc. A priori, it seems that the interoperation and the integration of several linguistic tools into an appropriate software architecture could most likely solve the limitations stated in (1). Besides, integrating several linguistic annotation tools and making them interoperate could also minimise the limitation stated in (2). Nevertheless, in the latter case, all these tools should produce annotations for a common level, which would have to be combined in order to correct their corresponding errors and inaccuracies. Yet, the limitation stated in (3) prevents both types of integration and interoperation from being easily achieved. In addition, most high-level annotation tools rely on other lower-level annotation tools and their outputs to generate their own ones. For example, sense-tagging tools (operating at the semantic level) often use POS taggers (operating at a lower level, i.e., the morphosyntactic) to identify the grammatical category of the word or lexical unit they are annotating. Accordingly, if a faulty or inaccurate low-level annotation tool is to be used by other higher-level one in its process, the errors and inaccuracies of the former should be minimised in advance. Otherwise, these errors and inaccuracies would be transferred to (and even magnified in) the annotations of the high-level annotation tool. Therefore, it would be quite useful to find a way to (i) correct or, at least, reduce the errors and the inaccuracies of lower-level linguistic tools; (ii) unify the annotation schemas of different linguistic annotation tools or, more generally speaking, make these tools (as well as their annotations) interoperate. Clearly, solving (i) and (ii) should ease the automatic annotation of web pages by means of linguistic tools, and their transformation into Semantic Web pages (Berners-Lee, Hendler and Lassila, 2001). Yet, as stated above, (ii) is a type of interoperability problem. There again, ontologies (Gruber, 1993; Borst, 1997) have been successfully applied thus far to solve several interoperability problems. Hence, ontologies should help solve also the problems and limitations of linguistic annotation tools aforementioned. Thus, to summarise, the main aim of the present work was to combine somehow these separated approaches, mechanisms and tools for annotation from Linguistics and Ontological Engineering (and the Semantic Web) in a sort of hybrid (linguistic and ontological) annotation model, suitable for both areas. This hybrid (semantic) annotation model should (a) benefit from the advances, models, techniques, mechanisms and tools of these two areas; (b) minimise (and even solve, when possible) some of the problems found in each of them; and (c) be suitable for the Semantic Web. The concrete goals that helped attain this aim are presented in the following section. 2. GOALS OF THE PRESENT WORK As mentioned above, the main goal of this work was to specify a hybrid (that is, linguistically-motivated and ontology-based) model of annotation suitable for the Semantic Web (i.e. it had to produce a semantic annotation of web page contents). This entailed that the tags included in the annotations of the model had to (1) represent linguistic concepts (or linguistic categories, as they are termed in ISO/DCR (2008)), in order for this model to be linguistically-motivated; (2) be ontological terms (i.e., use an ontological vocabulary), in order for the model to be ontology-based; and (3) be structured (linked) as a collection of ontology-based triples, as in the usual Semantic Web languages (namely RDF(S) and OWL), in order for the model to be considered suitable for the Semantic Web. Besides, to be useful for the Semantic Web, this model should provide a way to automate the annotation of web pages. As for the present work, this requirement involved reusing the linguistic annotation tools purchased by the OEG research group (http://www.oeg-upm.net), but solving beforehand (or, at least, minimising) some of their limitations. Therefore, this model had to minimise these limitations by means of the integration of several linguistic annotation tools into a common architecture. Since this integration required the interoperation of tools and their annotations, ontologies were proposed as the main technological component to make them effectively interoperate. From the very beginning, it seemed that the formalisation of the elements and the knowledge underlying linguistic annotations within an appropriate set of ontologies would be a great step forward towards the formulation of such a model (henceforth referred to as OntoTag). Obviously, first, to combine the results of the linguistic annotation tools that operated at the same level, their annotation schemas had to be unified (or, preferably, standardised) in advance. This entailed the unification (id. standardisation) of their tags (both their representation and their meaning), and their format or syntax. Second, to merge the results of the linguistic annotation tools operating at different levels, their respective annotation schemas had to be (a) made interoperable and (b) integrated. And third, in order for the resulting annotations to suit the Semantic Web, they had to be specified by means of an ontology-based vocabulary, and structured by means of ontology-based triples, as hinted above. Therefore, a new annotation scheme had to be devised, based both on ontologies and on this type of triples, which allowed for the combination and the integration of the annotations of any set of linguistic annotation tools. This annotation scheme was considered a fundamental part of the model proposed here, and its development was, accordingly, another major objective of the present work. All these goals, aims and objectives could be re-stated more clearly as follows: Goal 1: Development of a set of ontologies for the formalisation of the linguistic knowledge relating linguistic annotation. Sub-goal 1.1: Ontological formalisation of the EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) de facto standards for morphosyntactic and syntactic annotation, in a way that helps respect the triple structure recommended for annotations in these works (which is isomorphic to the triple structures used in the context of the Semantic Web). Sub-goal 1.2: Incorporation into this preliminary ontological formalisation of other existing standards and standard proposals relating the levels mentioned above, such as those currently under development within ISO/TC 37 (the ISO Technical Committee dealing with Terminology, which deals also with linguistic resources and annotations). Sub-goal 1.3: Generalisation and extension of the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and ISO/TC 37 to the semantic level, for which no ISO/TC 37 standards have been developed yet. Sub-goal 1.4: Ontological formalisation of the generalisations and/or extensions obtained in the previous sub-goal as generalisations and/or extensions of the corresponding ontology (or ontologies). Sub-goal 1.5: Ontological formalisation of the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the previously developed ontology (or ontologies). Goal 2: Development of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, a standard-based abstract scheme for the hybrid (linguistically-motivated and ontological-based) annotation of texts. Sub-goal 2.1: Development of the standard-based morphosyntactic annotation level of OntoTag’s scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996a) and also the recommendations included in the ISO/MAF (2008) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.2: Development of the standard-based syntactic annotation level of the hybrid abstract scheme. This level should include, and possibly extend, the recommendations of EAGLES (1996b) and the ISO/SynAF (2010) standard draft. Sub-goal 2.3: Development of the standard-based semantic annotation level of OntoTag’s (abstract) scheme. Sub-goal 2.4: Development of the mechanisms for a convenient integration of the three annotation levels already mentioned. These mechanisms should take into account the recommendations included in the ISO/LAF (2009) standard draft. Goal 3: Design of OntoTag’s (abstract) annotation architecture, an abstract architecture for the hybrid (semantic) annotation of texts (i) that facilitates the integration and interoperation of different linguistic annotation tools, and (ii) whose results comply with OntoTag’s annotation scheme. Sub-goal 3.1: Specification of the decanting processes that allow for the classification and separation, according to their corresponding levels, of the results of the linguistic tools annotating at several different levels. Sub-goal 3.2: Specification of the standardisation processes that allow (a) complying with the standardisation requirements of OntoTag’s annotation scheme, as well as (b) combining the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.3: Specification of the merging processes that allow for the combination of the output annotations and the interoperation of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation. Sub-goal 3.4: Specification of the merge processes that allow for the integration of the results and the interoperation of those tools performing their annotations at different levels. Goal 4: Generation of OntoTagger’s schema, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract scheme for a concrete set of linguistic annotations. These linguistic annotations result from the tools and the resources available in the research group, namely • Bitext’s DataLexica (http://www.bitext.com/EN/datalexica.asp), • LACELL’s (POS) tagger (http://www.um.es/grupos/grupo-lacell/quees.php), • Connexor’s FDG (http://www.connexor.eu/technology/machinese/glossary/fdg/), and • EuroWordNet (Vossen et al., 1998). This schema should help evaluate OntoTag’s underlying hypotheses, stated below. Consequently, it should implement, at least, those levels of the abstract scheme dealing with the annotations of the set of tools considered in this implementation. This includes the morphosyntactic, the syntactic and the semantic levels. Goal 5: Implementation of OntoTagger’s configuration, a concrete instance of OntoTag’s abstract architecture for this set of linguistic tools and annotations. This configuration (1) had to use the schema generated in the previous goal; and (2) should help support or refute the hypotheses of this work as well (see the next section). Sub-goal 5.1: Implementation of the decanting processes that facilitate the classification and separation of the results of those linguistic resources that provide annotations at several different levels (on the one hand, LACELL’s tagger operates at the morphosyntactic level and, minimally, also at the semantic level; on the other hand, FDG operates at the morphosyntactic and the syntactic levels and, minimally, at the semantic level as well). Sub-goal 5.2: Implementation of the standardisation processes that allow (i) specifying the results of those linguistic tools that share some level of annotation according to the requirements of OntoTagger’s schema, as well as (ii) combining these shared level results. In particular, all the tools selected perform morphosyntactic annotations and they had to be conveniently combined by means of these processes. Sub-goal 5.3: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the combination (and possibly the improvement) of the annotations and the interoperation of the tools that share some level of annotation (in particular, those relating the morphosyntactic level, as in the previous sub-goal). Sub-goal 5.4: Implementation of the merging processes that allow for the integration of the different standardised and combined annotations aforementioned, relating all the levels considered. Sub-goal 5.5: Improvement of the semantic level of this configuration by adding a named entity recognition, (sub-)classification and annotation subsystem, which also uses the named entities annotated to populate a domain ontology, in order to provide a concrete application of the present work in the two areas involved (the Semantic Web and Corpus Linguistics). 3. MAIN RESULTS: ASSESSMENT OF ONTOTAG’S UNDERLYING HYPOTHESES The model developed in the present thesis tries to shed some light on (i) whether linguistic annotation tools can effectively interoperate; (ii) whether their results can be combined and integrated; and, if they can, (iii) how they can, respectively, interoperate and be combined and integrated. Accordingly, several hypotheses had to be supported (or rejected) by the development of the OntoTag model and OntoTagger (its implementation). The hypotheses underlying OntoTag are surveyed below. Only one of the hypotheses (H.6) was rejected; the other five could be confirmed. H.1 The annotations of different levels (or layers) can be integrated into a sort of overall, comprehensive, multilayer and multilevel annotation, so that their elements can complement and refer to each other. • CONFIRMED by the development of: o OntoTag’s annotation scheme, o OntoTag’s annotation architecture, o OntoTagger’s (XML, RDF, OWL) annotation schemas, o OntoTagger’s configuration. H.2 Tool-dependent annotations can be mapped onto a sort of tool-independent annotations and, thus, can be standardised. • CONFIRMED by means of the standardisation phase incorporated into OntoTag and OntoTagger for the annotations yielded by the tools. H.3 Standardisation should ease: H.3.1: The interoperation of linguistic tools. H.3.2: The comparison, combination (at the same level and layer) and integration (at different levels or layers) of annotations. • H.3 was CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s ontology-based configuration: o Interoperation, comparison, combination and integration of the annotations of three different linguistic tools (Connexor’s FDG, Bitext’s DataLexica and LACELL’s tagger); o Integration of EuroWordNet-based, domain-ontology-based and named entity annotations at the semantic level. o Integration of morphosyntactic, syntactic and semantic annotations. H.4 Ontologies and Semantic Web technologies (can) play a crucial role in the standardisation of linguistic annotations, by providing consensual vocabularies and standardised formats for annotation (e.g., RDF triples). • CONFIRMED by means of the development of OntoTagger’s RDF-triple-based annotation schemas. H.5 The rate of errors introduced by a linguistic tool at a given level, when annotating, can be reduced automatically by contrasting and combining its results with the ones coming from other tools, operating at the same level. However, these other tools might be built following a different technological (stochastic vs. rule-based, for example) or theoretical (dependency vs. HPS-grammar-based, for instance) approach. • CONFIRMED by the results yielded by the evaluation of OntoTagger. H.6 Each linguistic level can be managed and annotated independently. • REJECTED: OntoTagger’s experiments and the dependencies observed among the morphosyntactic annotations, and between them and the syntactic annotations. In fact, Hypothesis H.6 was already rejected when OntoTag’s ontologies were developed. We observed then that several linguistic units stand on an interface between levels, belonging thereby to both of them (such as morphosyntactic units, which belong to both the morphological level and the syntactic level). Therefore, the annotations of these levels overlap and cannot be handled independently when merged into a unique multileveled annotation. 4. OTHER MAIN RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTIONS First, interoperability is a hot topic for both the linguistic annotation community and the whole Computer Science field. The specification (and implementation) of OntoTag’s architecture for the combination and integration of linguistic (annotation) tools and annotations by means of ontologies shows a way to make these different linguistic annotation tools and annotations interoperate in practice. Second, as mentioned above, the elements involved in linguistic annotation were formalised in a set (or network) of ontologies (OntoTag’s linguistic ontologies). • On the one hand, OntoTag’s network of ontologies consists of − The Linguistic Unit Ontology (LUO), which includes a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of linguistic elements (i.e., units) identifiable in a written text; − The Linguistic Attribute Ontology (LAO), which includes also a mostly hierarchical formalisation of the different types of features that characterise the linguistic units included in the LUO; − The Linguistic Value Ontology (LVO), which includes the corresponding formalisation of the different values that the attributes in the LAO can take; − The OIO (OntoTag’s Integration Ontology), which  Includes the knowledge required to link, combine and unite the knowledge represented in the LUO, the LAO and the LVO;  Can be viewed as a knowledge representation ontology that describes the most elementary vocabulary used in the area of annotation. • On the other hand, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the knowledge included in the different standards and recommendations for linguistic annotation released so far, such as those developed within the EAGLES and the SIMPLE European projects or by the ISO/TC 37 committee: − As far as morphosyntactic annotations are concerned, OntoTag’s ontologies formalise the terms in the EAGLES (1996a) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Morphosyntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/MAF, 2008) standard; − As for syntactic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies incorporate the terms in the EAGLES (1996b) recommendations and their corresponding terms within the ISO Syntactic Annotation Framework (ISO/SynAF, 2010) standard draft; − Regarding semantic annotations, OntoTag’s ontologies generalise and extend the recommendations in EAGLES (1996a; 1996b) and, since no stable standards or standard drafts have been released for semantic annotation by ISO/TC 37 yet, they incorporate the terms in SIMPLE (2000) instead; − The terms coming from all these recommendations and standards were supplemented by those within the ISO Data Category Registry (ISO/DCR, 2008) and also of the ISO Linguistic Annotation Framework (ISO/LAF, 2009) standard draft when developing OntoTag’s ontologies. Third, we showed that the combination of the results of tools annotating at the same level can yield better results (both in precision and in recall) than each tool separately. In particular, 1. OntoTagger clearly outperformed two of the tools integrated into its configuration, namely DataLexica and FDG in all the combination sub-phases in which they overlapped (i.e. POS tagging, lemma annotation and morphological feature annotation). As far as the remaining tool is concerned, i.e. LACELL’s tagger, it was also outperformed by OntoTagger in POS tagging and lemma annotation, and it did not behave better than OntoTagger in the morphological feature annotation layer. 2. As an immediate result, this implies that a) This type of combination architecture configurations can be applied in order to improve significantly the accuracy of linguistic annotations; and b) Concerning the morphosyntactic level, this could be regarded as a way of constructing more robust and more accurate POS tagging systems. Fourth, Semantic Web annotations are usually performed by humans or else by machine learning systems. Both of them leave much to be desired: the former, with respect to their annotation rate; the latter, with respect to their (average) precision and recall. In this work, we showed how linguistic tools can be wrapped in order to annotate automatically Semantic Web pages using ontologies. This entails their fast, robust and accurate semantic annotation. As a way of example, as mentioned in Sub-goal 5.5, we developed a particular OntoTagger module for the recognition, classification and labelling of named entities, according to the MUC and ACE tagsets (Chinchor, 1997; Doddington et al., 2004). These tagsets were further specified by means of a domain ontology, namely the Cinema Named Entities Ontology (CNEO). This module was applied to the automatic annotation of ten different web pages containing cinema reviews (that is, around 5000 words). In addition, the named entities annotated with this module were also labelled as instances (or individuals) of the classes included in the CNEO and, then, were used to populate this domain ontology. • The statistical results obtained from the evaluation of this particular module of OntoTagger can be summarised as follows. On the one hand, as far as recall (R) is concerned, (R.1) the lowest value was 76,40% (for file 7); (R.2) the highest value was 97, 50% (for file 3); and (R.3) the average value was 88,73%. On the other hand, as far as the precision rate (P) is concerned, (P.1) its minimum was 93,75% (for file 4); (R.2) its maximum was 100% (for files 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10); and (R.3) its average value was 98,99%. • These results, which apply to the tasks of named entity annotation and ontology population, are extraordinary good for both of them. They can be explained on the basis of the high accuracy of the annotations provided by OntoTagger at the lower levels (mainly at the morphosyntactic level). However, they should be conveniently qualified, since they might be too domain- and/or language-dependent. It should be further experimented how our approach works in a different domain or a different language, such as French, English, or German. • In any case, the results of this application of Human Language Technologies to Ontology Population (and, accordingly, to Ontological Engineering) seem very promising and encouraging in order for these two areas to collaborate and complement each other in the area of semantic annotation. Fifth, as shown in the State of the Art of this work, there are different approaches and models for the semantic annotation of texts, but all of them focus on a particular view of the semantic level. Clearly, all these approaches and models should be integrated in order to bear a coherent and joint semantic annotation level. OntoTag shows how (i) these semantic annotation layers could be integrated together; and (ii) they could be integrated with the annotations associated to other annotation levels. Sixth, we identified some recommendations, best practices and lessons learned for annotation standardisation, interoperation and merge. They show how standardisation (via ontologies, in this case) enables the combination, integration and interoperation of different linguistic tools and their annotations into a multilayered (or multileveled) linguistic annotation, which is one of the hot topics in the area of Linguistic Annotation. And last but not least, OntoTag’s annotation scheme and OntoTagger’s annotation schemas show a way to formalise and annotate coherently and uniformly the different units and features associated to the different levels and layers of linguistic annotation. This is a great scientific step ahead towards the global standardisation of this area, which is the aim of ISO/TC 37 (in particular, Subcommittee 4, dealing with the standardisation of linguistic annotations and resources).

Comparative study of auxetic geometrics by means of computer-aided design and engineering

Auxetic materials (or metamaterials) are those with a negative Poisson ratio (NPR) and display the unexpected property of lateral expansion when stretched, as well as an equal and opposing densification when compressed. Such geometries are being progressively employed in the development of novel products, especially in the fields of intelligent expandable actuators, shape morphing structures and minimally invasive implantable devices. Although several auxetic and potentially auxetic geometries have been summarized in previous reviews and research, precise information regarding relevant properties for design tasks is not always provided. In this study we present a comparative study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional auxetic geometries carried out by means of computer-aided design and engineering tools (from now on CAD–CAE). The first part of the study is focused on the development of a CAD library of auxetics. Once the library is developed we simulate the behavior of the different auxetic geometries and elaborate a systematic comparison, considering relevant properties of these geometries, such as Poisson ratio(s), maximum volume or area reductions attainable and equivalent Young's modulus, hoping it may provide useful information for future designs of devices based on these interesting structures.

Initiatives and facilities for E&T in the nuclear science and technology master at UPM

The present Master/Doctorate in Nuclear Science and Technology programme implemented in the Department of Nuclear Engineering of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (NED-UPM) has the excellence qualification by the Spanish Ministry of Education. One of the main of this programme is the training for the development of methodologies of simulation, design and advanced analysis, including experimental tools, necessary in research and in professional work in the nuclear field.

Microstructure and mechanical properties degradation at high temperature of tungsten alloys processed by forging

One of the challenges of science and engineering nowadays is to develop new ways to supply energy in a sustainable and ecological mode. The fussion energy could be the final answer but a myriad of problems must be solved previously.

International Materials Science Seminars: A Bridge between Two Continents

International Materials Science Seminars aim at combining the expertise of several advanced research groups and creating an unique opportunity for foreign and Spanish students in terms of cutting-edge research.

Proposal for a semantic hierarchy of terminological metaphors in science and technology

Cognitive linguistics is considered as one of the most appropriate approaches to the study of scientific and technical language formation and development, where metaphor is accepted to play an essential role. This paper, based on the Cognitive Theory of Metaphor, takes as the starting point the terminological metaphors established in the research project METACITEC(Note 1), which was developed with the purpose of unfolding constitutive metaphors and their function in the language of science and technology. After the analysis of metaphorical terms and using a mixed corpus from the fields of Agriculture, Geology, Mining, Metallurgy, and other related technical fields, this study presents a proposal for a hierarchy of the selected metaphors underlying the scientific conceptual system, based on the semantic distance found in the projection from the source domain to the target domain. We argue that this semantic distance can be considered as an important parameter to take into account in order to establish the metaphoricity of science and technology metaphorical terms. The findings contribute to expand on the CTM stance that metaphor is a matter of cognition by reviewing the abstract-concrete conceptual relationship between the target and source domains, and to determine the role of human creativity and imagination in the language of science and technology configuration

Complejidad Esencial: Un argumento por la complementariedad entre ciencia y sensibilidad = Essential Complexity: An argument for complementarity between science and sensibility

Esta investigación recoge un cúmulo de intereses en torno a un modo de generar arquitectura muy específico: La producción de objetos con una forma subyacente no apriorística. Los conocimientos expuestos se apoyan en condiciones del pensamiento reciente que impulsan la ilusión por alimentar la fuente creativa de la arquitectura con otros campos del saber. Los tiempos del conocimiento animista sensible y el conocimiento objetivo de carácter científico son correlativos en la historia pero casi nunca han sido sincrónicos. Representa asimismo un intento por aunar los dos tipos de conocimiento retomando la inercia que ya se presentía a comienzos del siglo XX. Se trata por tanto, de un ensayo sobre la posible anulación de la contraposición entre estos dos mundos para pasar a una complementariedad entre ambos en una sola visión conjunta compartida. Como meta final de esta investigación se presenta el desarrollo de un sistema crítico de análisis para los objetos arquitectónicos que permita una diferenciación entre aquellos que responden a los problemas de manera completa y sincera y aquellos otros que esconden, bajo una superficie consensuada, la falta de un método resolutivo de la complejidad en el presente creativo. La Investigación observa tres grupos de conocimiento diferenciados agrupados en sus capítulos correspondientes: El primer capítulo versa sobre el Impulso Creador. En él se define la necesidad de crear un marco para el individuo creador, aquel que independientemente de las fuerzas sociales del momento presiente que existe algo más allá que está sin resolver. Denominamos aquí “creador rebelde” a un tipo de personaje reconocible a lo largo de la Historia como aquel capaz de reconocer los cambios que ese operan en su presente y que utiliza para descubrir lo nuevo y acercarse algo al origen creativo. En el momento actual ese tipo de personaje es el que intuye o ya ha intuido hace tiempo la existencia de una complejidad creciente no obviable en el pensamiento de este tiempo. El segundo capítulo desarrolla algunas Propiedades de Sistemas de actuación creativa. En él se muestra una investigación que desarrolla un marco de conocimientos científicos muy específicos de nuestro tiempo que la arquitectura, de momento, no ha absorbido ni refleja de manera directa en su manera de crear. Son temas de presencia casi ya mundana en la sociedad pero que se resisten a ser incluidos en los procesos creativos como parte de la conciencia. La mayoría de ellos hablan de precisión, órdenes invisibles, propiedades de la materia o la energía tratados de manera objetiva y apolítica. La meta final supone el acercamiento e incorporación de estos conceptos y propiedades a nuestro mundo sensible unificándolos indisociablemente bajo un solo punto de vista. El último capítulo versa sobre la Complejidad y su capacidad de reducción a lo esencial. Aquí se muestran, a modo de conclusiones, la introducción de varios conceptos para el desarrollo de un sistema crítico hacia la arquitectura de nuestro tiempo. Entre ellos, el de Complejidad Esencial, definido como aquella de carácter inevitable a la hora de responder la arquitectura a los problemas y solicitaciones crecientes a los que se enfrenta en el presente. La Tesis mantiene la importancia de informar sobre la imposibilidad en el estado actual de las cosas de responder de manera sincera con soluciones de carácter simplista y la necesidad, por tanto, de soluciones necesarias de carácter complejo. En este sentido se define asimismo el concepto de Forma Subyacente como herramienta crítica para poder evaluar la respuesta de cada arquitectura y poder tener un sistema y visión crítica sobre lo que es un objeto consistente frente a la situación a la que se enfrenta. Dicha forma subyacente se define como aquella manera de entender conjuntamente y de manera sincrónica aquello que percibimos de manera sensible inseparable de las fuerzas ocultas, creativas, tecnológicas, materiales y energéticas que sustentan la definición y entendimiento de cualquier objeto construido. ABSTRACT This research includes a cluster of interests around a specific way to generate architecture: The production of objects without an a priori underlying form. The knowledge presented is based on current conditions of thought promoting the illusion to feed the creative source of architecture with other fields of knowledge. The sensible animist knowledge and objective scientific knowledge are correlative in history but have rarely been synchronous. This research is also an attempt to combine both types of knowledge to regain the inertia already sensed in the early twentieth century. It is therefore an essay on the annulment of the opposition between these two worlds to move towards complementarities of both in a single shared vision. The ultimate goal of this research is to present the development of a critical analysis system for architectural objects that allows differentiation between those who respond to the problems sincerely and those who hide under an agreed appearance, the lack of a method for solving the complexity of the creative present. The research observes three distinct groups of knowledge contained in their respective chapters: The first chapter deals with the Creative Impulse. In it is defined the need to create a framework for the creative individual who, regardless of the current social forces, forebodes that there is something hidden beyond which is still unresolved. We define the "rebel creator" as a kind of person existing throughout history who is able to recognize the changes operating in its present and use them to discover something new and get closer to the origin of creation. At present, this type of character is the one who intuits the existence of a non obviable increasing complexity in society and thought. The second chapter presents some systems, and their properties, for creative performance. It describes the development of a framework composed of current scientific knowledge that architecture has not yet absorbed or reflected directly in her procedures. These are issues of common presence in society but are still reluctant to be included in the creative processes even if they already belong to the collective consciousness. Most of them talk about accuracy, invisible orders, properties of matter and energy, always treated from an objective and apolitical perspective. The ultimate goal pursues the approach and incorporation of these concepts and properties to the sensible world, inextricably unifying all under a single point of view. The last chapter deals with complexity and the ability to reduce it to the essentials. Here we show, as a conclusion, the introduction of several concepts to develop a critical approach to analyzing the architecture of our time. Among them, the concept of Essential Complexity, defined as one that inevitably arises when architecture responds to the increasing stresses that faces today. The thesis maintains the importance of reporting, in the present state of things, the impossibility to respond openly with simplistic solutions and, therefore, the need for solutions to complex character. In this sense, the concept of Underlying Form is defined as a critical tool to evaluate the response of each architecture and possess a critical system to clarify what is an consistent object facing a certain situation. The underlying form is then defined as a way to synchronously understand what we perceive sensitively inseparable from the hidden forces of creative, technological, material and energetic character that support the definition and understanding of any constructed object.