Un'analisi dell'impatto dell'informatica sul mercato del lavoro

In questa analisi si cercherà di comprendere cosa caratterizza questa l'ondata di progresso tecnologico che sta cambiando il mercato del lavoro. Il principale aspetto negativo di questo progresso si chiama "Technological Unemployment". Benché gli esperti si trovino in disaccordo su quali siano le cause della persistente alta disoccupazione, Brynjolfsson e McAfee puntano il dito contro l'automazione che ha soppiantato i lavori ripetitivi delle aziende. Tuttavia, è anche vero che il progresso ha sempre portato aumenti di produttività, e soprattutto nuovi tipi di occupazioni che hanno compensato la perdita di posti di lavoro, nel medio-lungo termine. Keynes evidenzia che la disoccupazione dovuta alla scoperta di strumenti economizzatori di manodopera procede con ritmo più rapido di quello con cui riusciamo a trovare nuovi impieghi per la manodopera stessa. Da ciò si crea ansia per il futuro, più o meno motivata. Gli stessi esperti sono spaccati a metà tra chi ha fiducia nei possibili risvolti positivi del progresso e chi invece teme possa comportare scenari catastrofici. Le macchine ci rubano lavoro o ci liberano da esso? Con questa ricerca ci si pone l'obiettivo di analizzare le effettive prospettive dei prossimi decenni. Nel capitolo 2 che è il corpo della tesi prenderemo soprattutto in conto il lavoro accademico di Frey ed Osborne dell'Oxford Martin School, intitolato "The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation?" (2013). Essi sono stati tra i primi a studiare e quantificare cosa comporteranno le nuove tecnologie in termini di impiego. Il loro obiettivo era individuare le occupazioni a rischio, da qui a vent'anni, nel mercato del lavoro degli Stati Uniti e la relazione che intercorre tra la loro probabilità di essere computerizzati e i loro salari e livello d'istruzione medi, il tutto valutato attraverso l'ausilio di una nuova metodologia che si vedrà nel dettaglio. A conclusioni simili alle loro, per certi aspetti, è successivamente giunto anche Autor; tra l'altro viene spesso citato per altre sue opere dagli stessi Frey e Osborne, che usano le sue categorizzazioni per impostare la struttura del loro calcolo dell'automatizzabilità dei lavori utilizzando i recenti miglioramenti nelle scienze ingegneristiche quali ML (Machine Learning ad esempio Data mining, Machine vision, Computational statistics o più in generale AI) e MR (Mobile robotics) come strumenti di valutazione. Oltre alle sue ricerche, si presenteranno brevemente i risultati di un recente sondaggio tenuto dal Pew Research Center in cui importanti figure dell'informatica e dell'economia esprimono il loro giudizio sul futuro panorama del mondo del lavoro, considerando l'imminente ondata di innovazioni tecnologiche. La tesi si conclude con un'elaborazione personale. In questo modo si prenderà coscienza dei problemi concreti che il progresso tecnologico potrebbe procurare, ma anche dei suoi aspetti positivi.

Automated Intervertebral Disc Detection from Low Resolution, Sparse MRI Images for the Planning of Scan Geometries

Robust and accurate identification of intervertebral discs from low resolution, sparse MRI scans is essential for the automated scan planning of the MRI spine scan. This paper presents a graphical model based solution for the detection of both the positions and orientations of intervertebral discs from low resolution, sparse MRI scans. Compared with the existing graphical model based methods, the proposed method does not need a training process using training data and it also has the capability to automatically determine the number of vertebrae visible in the image. Experiments on 25 low resolution, sparse spine MRI data sets verified its performance.

NodePM: A Remote Monitoring Alert System for Energy Consumption Using Probabilistic Techniques

In this paper, we propose an intelligent method, named the Novelty Detection Power Meter (NodePM), to detect novelties in electronic equipment monitored by a smart grid. Considering the entropy of each device monitored, which is calculated based on a Markov chain model, the proposed method identifies novelties through a machine learning algorithm. To this end, the NodePM is integrated into a platform for the remote monitoring of energy consumption, which consists of a wireless sensors network (WSN). It thus should be stressed that the experiments were conducted in real environments different from many related works, which are evaluated in simulated environments. In this sense, the results show that the NodePM reduces by 13.7% the power consumption of the equipment we monitored. In addition, the NodePM provides better efficiency to detect novelties when compared to an approach from the literature, surpassing it in different scenarios in all evaluations that were carried out.

A Food Recognition System for Diabetic Patients based on an Optimized Bag of Features Model

Computer vision-based food recognition could be used to estimate a meal's carbohydrate content for diabetic patients. This study proposes a methodology for automatic food recognition, based on the Bag of Features (BoF) model. An extensive technical investigation was conducted for the identification and optimization of the best performing components involved in the BoF architecture, as well as the estimation of the corresponding parameters. For the design and evaluation of the prototype system, a visual dataset with nearly 5,000 food images was created and organized into 11 classes. The optimized system computes dense local features, using the scale-invariant feature transform on the HSV color space, builds a visual dictionary of 10,000 visual words by using the hierarchical k-means clustering and finally classifies the food images with a linear support vector machine classifier. The system achieved classification accuracy of the order of 78%, thus proving the feasibility of the proposed approach in a very challenging image dataset.

Global Optimization with Sparse and Local Gaussian Process Models

We present a novel surrogate model-based global optimization framework allowing a large number of function evaluations. The method, called SpLEGO, is based on a multi-scale expected improvement (EI) framework relying on both sparse and local Gaussian process (GP) models. First, a bi-objective approach relying on a global sparse GP model is used to determine potential next sampling regions. Local GP models are then constructed within each selected region. The method subsequently employs the standard expected improvement criterion to deal with the exploration-exploitation trade-off within selected local models, leading to a decision on where to perform the next function evaluation(s). The potential of our approach is demonstrated using the so-called Sparse Pseudo-input GP as a global model. The algorithm is tested on four benchmark problems, whose number of starting points ranges from 102 to 104. Our results show that SpLEGO is effective and capable of solving problems with large number of starting points, and it even provides significant advantages when compared with state-of-the-art EI algorithms.

Differentiating the Multipoint Expected Improvement for Optimal Batch Design

This work deals with parallel optimization of expensive objective functions which are modelled as sample realizations of Gaussian processes. The study is formalized as a Bayesian optimization problem, or continuous multi-armed bandit problem, where a batch of q > 0 arms is pulled in parallel at each iteration. Several algorithms have been developed for choosing batches by trading off exploitation and exploration. As of today, the maximum Expected Improvement (EI) and Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) selection rules appear as the most prominent approaches for batch selection. Here, we build upon recent work on the multipoint Expected Improvement criterion, for which an analytic expansion relying on Tallis’ formula was recently established. The computational burden of this selection rule being still an issue in application, we derive a closed-form expression for the gradient of the multipoint Expected Improvement, which aims at facilitating its maximization using gradient-based ascent algorithms. Substantial computational savings are shown in application. In addition, our algorithms are tested numerically and compared to state-of-the-art UCB-based batchsequential algorithms. Combining starting designs relying on UCB with gradient-based EI local optimization finally appears as a sound option for batch design in distributed Gaussian Process optimization.

Lung Pattern Classification for Interstitial Lung Diseases Using a Deep Convolutional Neural Network

Automated tissue characterization is one of the most crucial components of a computer aided diagnosis (CAD) system for interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Although much research has been conducted in this field, the problem remains challenging. Deep learning techniques have recently achieved impressive results in a variety of computer vision problems, raising expectations that they might be applied in other domains, such as medical image analysis. In this paper, we propose and evaluate a convolutional neural network (CNN), designed for the classification of ILD patterns. The proposed network consists of 5 convolutional layers with 2×2 kernels and LeakyReLU activations, followed by average pooling with size equal to the size of the final feature maps and three dense layers. The last dense layer has 7 outputs, equivalent to the classes considered: healthy, ground glass opacity (GGO), micronodules, consolidation, reticulation, honeycombing and a combination of GGO/reticulation. To train and evaluate the CNN, we used a dataset of 14696 image patches, derived by 120 CT scans from different scanners and hospitals. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first deep CNN designed for the specific problem. A comparative analysis proved the effectiveness of the proposed CNN against previous methods in a challenging dataset. The classification performance (~85.5%) demonstrated the potential of CNNs in analyzing lung patterns. Future work includes, extending the CNN to three-dimensional data provided by CT volume scans and integrating the proposed method into a CAD system that aims to provide differential diagnosis for ILDs as a supportive tool for radiologists.

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.

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).

A Satisfaction-based Model for Affect Recognition from Conversational Features in Spoken Dialog Systems

Detecting user affect automatically during real-time conversation is the main challenge towards our greater aim of infusing social intelligence into a natural-language mixed-initiative High-Fidelity (Hi-Fi) audio control spoken dialog agent. In recent years, studies on affect detection from voice have moved on to using realistic, non-acted data, which is subtler. However, it is more challenging to perceive subtler emotions and this is demonstrated in tasks such as labelling and machine prediction. This paper attempts to address part of this challenge by considering the role of user satisfaction ratings and also conversational/dialog features in discriminating contentment and frustration, two types of emotions that are known to be prevalent within spoken human-computer interaction. However, given the laboratory constraints, users might be positively biased when rating the system, indirectly making the reliability of the satisfaction data questionable. Machine learning experiments were conducted on two datasets, users and annotators, which were then compared in order to assess the reliability of these datasets. Our results indicated that standard classifiers were significantly more successful in discriminating the abovementioned emotions and their intensities (reflected by user satisfaction ratings) from annotator data than from user data. These results corroborated that: first, satisfaction data could be used directly as an alternative target variable to model affect, and that they could be predicted exclusively by dialog features. Second, these were only true when trying to predict the abovementioned emotions using annotator?s data, suggesting that user bias does exist in a laboratory-led evaluation.

Linear latent force models using Gaussian Processes

Purely data-driven approaches for machine learning present difficulties when data are scarce relative to the complexity of the model or when the model is forced to extrapolate. On the other hand, purely mechanistic approaches need to identify and specify all the interactions in the problem at hand (which may not be feasible) and still leave the issue of how to parameterize the system. In this paper, we present a hybrid approach using Gaussian processes and differential equations to combine data-driven modeling with a physical model of the system. We show how different, physically inspired, kernel functions can be developed through sensible, simple, mechanistic assumptions about the underlying system. The versatility of our approach is illustrated with three case studies from motion capture, computational biology, and geostatistics.