Fully automatic GBM segmentation in the TCGA-GBM dataset: Prognosis and correlation with VASARI features.

Reproducible definition and quantification of imaging biomarkers is essential. We evaluated a fully automatic MR-based segmentation method by comparing it to manually defined sub-volumes by experienced radiologists in the TCGA-GBM dataset, in terms of sub-volume prognosis and association with VASARI features. MRI sets of 109 GBM patients were downloaded from the Cancer Imaging archive. GBM sub-compartments were defined manually and automatically using the Brain Tumor Image Analysis (BraTumIA). Spearman's correlation was used to evaluate the agreement with VASARI features. Prognostic significance was assessed using the C-index. Auto-segmented sub-volumes showed moderate to high agreement with manually delineated volumes (range (r): 0.4 - 0.86). Also, the auto and manual volumes showed similar correlation with VASARI features (auto r = 0.35, 0.43 and 0.36; manual r = 0.17, 0.67, 0.41, for contrast-enhancing, necrosis and edema, respectively). The auto-segmented contrast-enhancing volume and post-contrast abnormal volume showed the highest AUC (0.66, CI: 0.55-0.77 and 0.65, CI: 0.54-0.76), comparable to manually defined volumes (0.64, CI: 0.53-0.75 and 0.63, CI: 0.52-0.74, respectively). BraTumIA and manual tumor sub-compartments showed comparable performance in terms of prognosis and correlation with VASARI features. This method can enable more reproducible definition and quantification of imaging based biomarkers and has potential in high-throughput medical imaging research.

Discourse-level Annotation over Europarl for Machine Translation: Connectives and Pronouns

This paper describes methods and results for the annotation of two discourse-level phenomena, connectives and pronouns, over a multilingual parallel corpus. Excerpts from Europarl in English and French have been annotated with disambiguation information for connectives and pronouns, for about 3600 tokens. This data is then used in several ways: for cross-linguistic studies, for training automatic disambiguation software, and ultimately for training and testing discourse-aware statistical machine translation systems. The paper presents the annotation procedures and their results in detail, and overviews the first systems trained on the annotated resources and their use for machine translation.

Automatic assessment of time-resolved OCT images for selective retina therapy

Purpose In recent years, selective retina laser treatment (SRT), a sub-threshold therapy method, avoids widespread damage to all retinal layers by targeting only a few. While these methods facilitate faster healing, their lack of visual feedback during treatment represents a considerable shortcoming as induced lesions remain invisible with conventional imaging and make clinical use challenging. To overcome this, we present a new strategy to provide location-specific and contact-free automatic feedback of SRT laser applications. Methods We leverage time-resolved optical coherence tomography (OCT) to provide informative feedback to clinicians on outcomes of location-specific treatment. By coupling an OCT system to SRT treatment laser, we visualize structural changes in the retinal layers as they occur via time-resolved depth images. We then propose a novel strategy for automatic assessment of such time-resolved OCT images. To achieve this, we introduce novel image features for this task that when combined with standard machine learning classifiers yield excellent treatment outcome classification capabilities. Results Our approach was evaluated on both ex vivo porcine eyes and human patients in a clinical setting, yielding performances above 95 % accuracy for predicting patient treatment outcomes. In addition, we show that accurate outcomes for human patients can be estimated even when our method is trained using only ex vivo porcine data. Conclusion The proposed technique presents a much needed strategy toward noninvasive, safe, reliable, and repeatable SRT applications. These results are encouraging for the broader use of new treatment options for neovascularization-based retinal pathologies.

Icebergs in the Amundsen Sea (Antarctica) determined from ENVISAT ASAR WSM data using object-based image analysis approach, link to ESRI GDB files

ENVISAT ASAR WSM images with pixel size 150 × 150 m, acquired in different meteorological, oceanographic and sea ice conditions were used to determined icebergs in the Amundsen Sea (Antarctica). An object-based method for automatic iceberg detection from SAR data has been developed and applied. The object identification is based on spectral and spatial parameters on 5 scale levels, and was verified with manual classification in four polygon areas, chosen to represent varying environmental conditions. The algorithm works comparatively well in freezing temperatures and strong wind conditions, prevailing in the Amundsen Sea during the year. The detection rate was 96% which corresponds to 94% of the area (counting icebergs larger than 0.03 km**2), for all seasons. The presented algorithm tends to generate errors in the form of false alarms, mainly caused by the presence of ice floes, rather than misses. This affects the reliability since false alarms were manually corrected post analysis.

Probability sampling protocol of classification maps from spaceborne/airborne image

To deliver sample estimates provided with the necessary probability foundation to permit generalization from the sample data subset to the whole target population being sampled, probability sampling strategies are required to satisfy three necessary not sufficient conditions: (i) All inclusion probabilities be greater than zero in the target population to be sampled. If some sampling units have an inclusion probability of zero, then a map accuracy assessment does not represent the entire target region depicted in the map to be assessed. (ii) The inclusion probabilities must be: (a) knowable for nonsampled units and (b) known for those units selected in the sample: since the inclusion probability determines the weight attached to each sampling unit in the accuracy estimation formulas, if the inclusion probabilities are unknown, so are the estimation weights. This original work presents a novel (to the best of these authors' knowledge, the first) probability sampling protocol for quality assessment and comparison of thematic maps generated from spaceborne/airborne Very High Resolution (VHR) images, where: (I) an original Categorical Variable Pair Similarity Index (CVPSI, proposed in two different formulations) is estimated as a fuzzy degree of match between a reference and a test semantic vocabulary, which may not coincide, and (II) both symbolic pixel-based thematic quality indicators (TQIs) and sub-symbolic object-based spatial quality indicators (SQIs) are estimated with a degree of uncertainty in measurement in compliance with the well-known Quality Assurance Framework for Earth Observation (QA4EO) guidelines. Like a decision-tree, any protocol (guidelines for best practice) comprises a set of rules, equivalent to structural knowledge, and an order of presentation of the rule set, known as procedural knowledge. The combination of these two levels of knowledge makes an original protocol worth more than the sum of its parts. The several degrees of novelty of the proposed probability sampling protocol are highlighted in this paper, at the levels of understanding of both structural and procedural knowledge, in comparison with related multi-disciplinary works selected from the existing literature. In the experimental session the proposed protocol is tested for accuracy validation of preliminary classification maps automatically generated by the Satellite Image Automatic MapperT (SIAMT) software product from two WorldView-2 images and one QuickBird-2 image provided by DigitalGlobe for testing purposes. In these experiments, collected TQIs and SQIs are statistically valid, statistically significant, consistent across maps and in agreement with theoretical expectations, visual (qualitative) evidence and quantitative quality indexes of operativeness (OQIs) claimed for SIAMT by related papers. As a subsidiary conclusion, the statistically consistent and statistically significant accuracy validation of the SIAMT pre-classification maps proposed in this contribution, together with OQIs claimed for SIAMT by related works, make the operational (automatic, accurate, near real-time, robust, scalable) SIAMT software product eligible for opening up new inter-disciplinary research and market opportunities in accordance with the visionary goal of the Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) initiative and the QA4EO international guidelines.

Bio-inspired FPGA Architecture for Self-Calibration of an Image Compression Core based on Wavelet Transforms in Embedded Systems

A generic bio-inspired adaptive architecture for image compression suitable to be implemented in embedded systems is presented. The architecture allows the system to be tuned during its calibration phase. An evolutionary algorithm is responsible of making the system evolve towards the required performance. A prototype has been implemented in a Xilinx Virtex-5 FPGA featuring an adaptive wavelet transform core directed at improving image compression for specific types of images. An Evolution Strategy has been chosen as the search algorithm and its typical genetic operators adapted to allow for a hardware friendly implementation. HW/SW partitioning issues are also considered after a high level description of the algorithm is profiled which validates the proposed resource allocation in the device fabric. To check the robustness of the system and its adaptation capabilities, different types of images have been selected as validation patterns. A direct application of such a system is its deployment in an unknown environment during design time, letting the calibration phase adjust the system parameters so that it performs efcient image compression. Also, this prototype implementation may serve as an accelerator for the automatic design of evolved transform coefficients which are later on synthesized and implemented in a non-adaptive system in the final implementation device, whether it is a HW or SW based computing device. The architecture has been built in a modular way so that it can be easily extended to adapt other types of image processing cores. Details on this pluggable component point of view are also given in the paper.

Automatic Bandwidth Estimation Strategy for High-Quality Non-Parametric Modeling based Moving Object Detection

Here, a novel and efficient moving object detection strategy by non-parametric modeling is presented. Whereas the foreground is modeled by combining color and spatial information, the background model is constructed exclusively with color information, thus resulting in a great reduction of the computational and memory requirements. The estimation of the background and foreground covariance matrices, allows us to obtain compact moving regions while the number of false detections is reduced. Additionally, the application of a tracking strategy provides a priori knowledge about the spatial position of the moving objects, which improves the performance of the Bayesian classifier

Automatic segmentation of relevant textures in agricultural images

One important issue emerging strongly in agriculture is related with the automatization of tasks, where the optical sensors play an important role. They provide images that must be conveniently processed. The most relevantimage processing procedures require the identification of green plants, in our experiments they come from barley and corn crops including weeds, so that some types of action can be carried out, including site-specific treatments with chemical products or mechanical manipulations. Also the identification of textures belonging to the soil could be useful to know some variables, such as humidity, smoothness or any others. Finally, from the point of view of the autonomous robot navigation, where the robot is equipped with the imaging system, some times it is convenient to know not only the soil information and the plants growing in the soil but also additional information supplied by global references based on specific areas. This implies that the images to be processed contain textures of three main types to be identified: green plants, soil and sky if any. This paper proposes a new automatic approach for segmenting these main textures and also to refine the identification of sub-textures inside the main ones. Concerning the green identification, we propose a new approach that exploits the performance of existing strategies by combining them. The combination takes into account the relevance of the information provided by each strategy based on the intensity variability. This makes an important contribution. The combination of thresholding approaches, for segmenting the soil and the sky, makes the second contribution; finally the adjusting of the supervised fuzzy clustering approach for identifying sub-textures automatically, makes the third finding. The performance of the method allows to verify its viability for automatic tasks in agriculture based on image processing

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).

Automatic compile-time parallelization of logic programs for restricted, goal-level, independent and-parallelism.

A framework for the automatic parallelization of (constraint) logic programs is proposed and proved correct. Intuitively, the parallelization process replaces conjunctions of literals with parallel expressions. Such expressions trigger at run-time the exploitation of restricted, goal-level, independent and-parallelism. The parallelization process performs two steps. The first one builds a conditional dependency graph (which can be implified using compile-time analysis information), while the second transforms the resulting graph into linear conditional expressions, the parallel expressions of the &-Prolog language. Several heuristic algorithms for the latter ("annotation") process are proposed and proved correct. Algorithms are also given which determine if there is any loss of parallelism in the linearization process with respect to a proposed notion of maximal parallelism. Finally, a system is presented which implements the proposed approach. The performance of the different annotation algorithms is compared experimentally in this system by studying the time spent in parallelization and the effectiveness of the results in terms of speedups.

Annotation algorithms for unrestricted independent and-parallelism in logic programs

We present two new algorithms which perform automatic parallelization via source-to-source transformations. The objective is to exploit goal-level, unrestricted independent and-parallelism. The proposed algorithms use as targets new parallel execution primitives which are simpler and more flexible than the well-known &/2 parallel operator. This makes it possible to genérate better parallel expressions by exposing more potential parallelism among the literals of a clause than is possible with &/2. The difference between the two algorithms stems from whether the order of the solutions obtained is preserved or not. We also report on a preliminary evaluation of an implementation of our approach. We compare the performance obtained to that of previous annotation algorithms and show that relevant improvements can be obtained.

The CDG, UDG, and MEL methods for automatic compile-time parallelization of logic programs for independent and-parallelism

There has been significant interest in parallel execution models for logic programs which exploit Independent And-Parallelism (IAP). In these models, it is necessary to determine which goals are independent and therefore eligible for parallel execution and which goals have to wait for which others during execution. Although this can be done at run-time, it can imply a very heavy overhead. In this paper, we present three algorithms for automatic compiletime parallelization of logic programs using IAP. This is done by converting a clause into a graph-based computational form and then transforming this graph into linear expressions based on &-Prolog, a language for IAP. We also present an algorithm which, given a clause, determines if there is any loss of parallelism due to linearization, for the case in which only unconditional parallelism is desired. Finally, the performance of these annotation algorithms is discussed for some benchmark programs.

Automatic unrestricted independent and-parallelism in logic programs

We present new algorithms which perform automatic parallelization via source-to-source transformations. The objective is to exploit goal-level, unrestricted independent andparallelism. The proposed algorithms use as targets new parallel execution primitives which are simpler and more flexible than the well-known &/2 parallel operator, which makes it possible to generate better parallel expressions by exposing more potential parallelism among the literals of a clause than is possible with &/2. The main differences between the algorithms stem from whether the order of the solutions obtained is preserved or not, and on the use of determinacy information. We briefly describe the environment where the algorithms have been implemented and the runtime platform in which the parallelized programs are executed. We also report on an evaluation of an implementation of our approach. We compare the performance obtained to that of previous annotation algorithms and show that relevant improvements can be obtained.

3D + t Morphological Processing: Applications to Embryogenesis Image Analysis

We propose to directly process 3D + t image sequences with mathematical morphology operators, using a new classi?cation of the 3D+t structuring elements. Several methods (?ltering, tracking, segmentation) dedicated to the analysis of 3D + t datasets of zebra?sh embryogenesis are introduced and validated through a synthetic dataset. Then, we illustrate the application of these methods to the analysis of datasets of zebra?sh early development acquired with various microscopy techniques. This processing paradigm produces spatio-temporal coherent results as it bene?ts from the intrinsic redundancy of the temporal dimension, and minimizes the needs for human intervention in semi-automatic algorithms.