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).

Experiences Using an Open Source Sofware Library to Teach Computer Vision Subjects

Machine vision is an important subject in computer science and engineering degrees. For laboratory experimentation, it is desirable to have a complete and easy-to-use tool. In this work we present a Java library, oriented to teaching computer vision. We have designed and built the library from the scratch with enfasis on readability and understanding rather than on efficiency. However, the library can also be used for research purposes. JavaVis is an open source Java library, oriented to the teaching of Computer Vision. It consists of a framework with several features that meet its demands. It has been designed to be easy to use: the user does not have to deal with internal structures or graphical interface, and should the student need to add a new algorithm it can be done simply enough. Once we sketch the library, we focus on the experience the student gets using this library in several computer vision courses. Our main goal is to find out whether the students understand what they are doing, that is, find out how much the library helps the student in grasping the basic concepts of computer vision. In the last four years we have conducted surveys to assess how much the students have improved their skills by using this library.

Educational Systems for Maximizing Learning Online and in the Classroom

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Influence apart from Adoption: How Interaction between Programming and Scientific Practices Shapes Modes of Inquiry in Four Oceanography Teams

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Understanding human genome regulation through entropic graph-based regularization and submodular optimization

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Motivating students to learn through good and helpful coursework feedback

The 2008 National Student Survey revealed that: 44% of full-time students in England did not think that the feedback on their work had been prompt nor did they agree that the feedback on their work helped them clarify things that they did not understand (HEFCE, 2008). Computer Science and Engineering & Technology have been amongst the poorest performers in this aspect as they ranked in the lower quartile (Surridge, 2007, p.32). Five years since the first NSS survey, assessment and feedback remains the biggest concern. Dissatisfaction in any aspect of studies demotivates students and can lead to disengagement and attrition. As the student number grows, the situation can only get worse if nothing is done about it. We have conducted a survey to investigate views on assessment and feedback from Engineering, Mathematics and Computing students. The survey aims at investigating the core issues of dissatisfaction in assessment and feedback and ways in which UK Engineering students can learn better through helpful feedback. The study focuses on collecting students' experiences with feedback received in their coursework, assignments and quizzes in Computing Science modules. The survey reveals the role of feedback in their learning. The results of the survey help to identify the forms of feedback that are considered to be helpful in learning and the time frame for timely feedback. We report on the findings of the survey. We also explore ways to improve assessment and feedback in a bid to better engage engineering students in their studies.

Designing for User-facing Uncertainty in Everyday Sensing and Prediction

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-07

Efficient Security and Privacy Enhancing Solutions in Untrusted Environments

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Learning to Interpret and Generate Instructional Recipes

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Extending the capabilities of smartphone sensors for applications in interaction and health

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2016-08

Enabling Human Centric Smart Campuses via Edge Computing and Connected Objects

Early definitions of Smart Building focused almost entirely on the technology aspect and did not suggest user interaction at all. Indeed, today we would attribute it more to the concept of the automated building. In this sense, control of comfort conditions inside buildings is a problem that is being well investigated, since it has a direct effect on users’ productivity and an indirect effect on energy saving. Therefore, from the users’ perspective, a typical environment can be considered comfortable, if it’s capable of providing adequate thermal comfort, visual comfort and indoor air quality conditions and acoustic comfort. In the last years, the scientific community has dealt with many challenges, especially from a technological point of view. For instance, smart sensing devices, the internet, and communication technologies have enabled a new paradigm called Edge computing that brings computation and data storage closer to the location where it is needed, to improve response times and save bandwidth. This has allowed us to improve services, sustainability and decision making. Many solutions have been implemented such as smart classrooms, controlling the thermal condition of the building, monitoring HVAC data for energy-efficient of the campus and so forth. Though these projects provide to the realization of smart campus, a framework for smart campus is yet to be determined. These new technologies have also introduced new research challenges: within this thesis work, some of the principal open challenges will be faced, proposing a new conceptual framework, technologies and tools to move forward the actual implementation of smart campuses. Keeping in mind, several problems known in the literature have been investigated: the occupancy detection, noise monitoring for acoustic comfort, context awareness inside the building, wayfinding indoor, strategic deployment for air quality and books preserving.

Big Code Applications and Approaches

The availability of a huge amount of source code from code archives and open-source projects opens up the possibility to merge machine learning, programming languages, and software engineering research fields. This area is often referred to as Big Code where programming languages are treated instead of natural languages while different features and patterns of code can be exploited to perform many useful tasks and build supportive tools. Among all the possible applications which can be developed within the area of Big Code, the work presented in this research thesis mainly focuses on two particular tasks: the Programming Language Identification (PLI) and the Software Defect Prediction (SDP) for source codes. Programming language identification is commonly needed in program comprehension and it is usually performed directly by developers. However, when it comes at big scales, such as in widely used archives (GitHub, Software Heritage), automation of this task is desirable. To accomplish this aim, the problem is analyzed from different points of view (text and image-based learning approaches) and different models are created paying particular attention to their scalability. Software defect prediction is a fundamental step in software development for improving quality and assuring the reliability of software products. In the past, defects were searched by manual inspection or using automatic static and dynamic analyzers. Now, the automation of this task can be tackled using learning approaches that can speed up and improve related procedures. Here, two models have been built and analyzed to detect some of the commonest bugs and errors at different code granularity levels (file and method levels). Exploited data and models’ architectures are analyzed and described in detail. Quantitative and qualitative results are reported for both PLI and SDP tasks while differences and similarities concerning other related works are discussed.

On Reasonable Space and Time Cost Models for the λ-Calculus

Slot and van Emde Boas Invariance Thesis states that a time (respectively, space) cost model is reasonable for a computational model C if there are mutual simulations between Turing machines and C such that the overhead is polynomial in time (respectively, linear in space). The rationale is that under the Invariance Thesis, complexity classes such as LOGSPACE, P, PSPACE, become robust, i.e. machine independent. In this dissertation, we want to find out if it possible to define a reasonable space cost model for the lambda-calculus, the paradigmatic model for functional programming languages. We start by considering an unusual evaluation mechanism for the lambda-calculus, based on Girard's Geometry of Interaction, that was conjectured to be the key ingredient to obtain a space reasonable cost model. By a fine complexity analysis of this schema, based on new variants of non-idempotent intersection types, we disprove this conjecture. Then, we change the target of our analysis. We consider a variant over Krivine's abstract machine, a standard evaluation mechanism for the call-by-name lambda-calculus, optimized for space complexity, and implemented without any pointer. A fine analysis of the execution of (a refined version of) the encoding of Turing machines into the lambda-calculus allows us to conclude that the space consumed by this machine is indeed a reasonable space cost model. In particular, for the first time we are able to measure also sub-linear space complexities. Moreover, we transfer this result to the call-by-value case. Finally, we provide also an intersection type system that characterizes compositionally this new reasonable space measure. This is done through a minimal, yet non trivial, modification of the original de Carvalho type system.

Security enhancements and flaws of emerging communication technologies

The multi-faced evolution of network technologies ranges from big data centers to specialized network infrastructures and protocols for mission-critical operations. For instance, technologies such as Software Defined Networking (SDN) revolutionized the world of static configuration of the network - i.e., by removing the distributed and proprietary configuration of the switched networks - centralizing the control plane. While this disruptive approach is interesting from different points of view, it can introduce new unforeseen vulnerabilities classes. One topic of particular interest in the last years is industrial network security, an interest which started to rise in 2016 with the introduction of the Industry 4.0 (I4.0) movement. Networks that were basically isolated by design are now connected to the internet to collect, archive, and analyze data. While this approach got a lot of momentum due to the predictive maintenance capabilities, these network technologies can be exploited in various ways from a cybersecurity perspective. Some of these technologies lack security measures and can introduce new families of vulnerabilities. On the other side, these networks can be used to enable accurate monitoring, formal verification, or defenses that were not practical before. This thesis explores these two fields: by introducing monitoring, protections, and detection mechanisms where the new network technologies make it feasible; and by demonstrating attacks on practical scenarios related to emerging network infrastructures not protected sufficiently. The goal of this thesis is to highlight this lack of protection in terms of attacks on and possible defenses enabled by emerging technologies. We will pursue this goal by analyzing the aforementioned technologies and by presenting three years of contribution to this field. In conclusion, we will recapitulate the research questions and give answers to them.

Methods for integrating machine learning and constrained optimization

In the framework of industrial problems, the application of Constrained Optimization is known to have overall very good modeling capability and performance and stands as one of the most powerful, explored, and exploited tool to address prescriptive tasks. The number of applications is huge, ranging from logistics to transportation, packing, production, telecommunication, scheduling, and much more. The main reason behind this success is to be found in the remarkable effort put in the last decades by the OR community to develop realistic models and devise exact or approximate methods to solve the largest variety of constrained or combinatorial optimization problems, together with the spread of computational power and easily accessible OR software and resources. On the other hand, the technological advancements lead to a data wealth never seen before and increasingly push towards methods able to extract useful knowledge from them; among the data-driven methods, Machine Learning techniques appear to be one of the most promising, thanks to its successes in domains like Image Recognition, Natural Language Processes and playing games, but also the amount of research involved. The purpose of the present research is to study how Machine Learning and Constrained Optimization can be used together to achieve systems able to leverage the strengths of both methods: this would open the way to exploiting decades of research on resolution techniques for COPs and constructing models able to adapt and learn from available data. In the first part of this work, we survey the existing techniques and classify them according to the type, method, or scope of the integration; subsequently, we introduce a novel and general algorithm devised to inject knowledge into learning models through constraints, Moving Target. In the last part of the thesis, two applications stemming from real-world projects and done in collaboration with Optit will be presented.