Impact And Explosive Loads On Concrete Buildings Using Shell And Beam Type Elements

The threat of impact or explosive loads is regrettably a scenario to be taken into account in the design of lifeline or critical civilian buildings. These are often made of concrete and not specifically designed for military threats. Numerical simulation of such cases may be undertaken with the aid of state of the art explicit dynamic codes, however several difficult challenges are inherent to such models: the material modeling for the concrete anisotropic failure, consideration of reinforcement bars and important structural details, adequate modeling of pressure waves from explosions in complex geometries, and efficient solution to models of complete buildings which can realistically assess failure modes. In this work we employ LS-Dyna for calculation, with Lagrangian finite elements and explicit time integration. Reinforced concrete may be represented in a fairly accurate fashion with recent models such as CSCM model [1] and segregated rebars constrained within the continuum mesh. However, such models cannot be realistically employed for complete models of large buildings, due to limitations of time and computer resources. The use of structural beam and shell elements for this purpose would be the obvious solution, with much lower computational cost. However, this modeling requires careful calibration in order to reproduce adequately the highly nonlinear response of structural concrete members, including bending with and without compression, cracking or plastic crushing, plastic deformation of reinforcement, erosion of vanished elements etc. The main objective of this work is to provide a strategy for modeling such scenarios based on structural elements, using available material models for structural elements [2] and techniques to include the reinforcement in a realistic way. These models are calibrated against fully three-dimensional models and shown to be accurate enough. At the same time they provide the basis for realistic simulation of impact and explosion on full-scale buildings

Two Novel Methods For The Determination Of The Number Of Components In Independent Components Analysis Models

Independent Components Analysis is a Blind Source Separation method that aims to find the pure source signals mixed together in unknown proportions in the observed signals under study. It does this by searching for factors which are mutually statistically independent. It can thus be classified among the latent-variable based methods. Like other methods based on latent variables, a careful investigation has to be carried out to find out which factors are significant and which are not. Therefore, it is important to dispose of a validation procedure to decide on the optimal number of independent components to include in the final model. This can be made complicated by the fact that two consecutive models may differ in the order and signs of similarly-indexed ICs. As well, the structure of the extracted sources can change as a function of the number of factors calculated. Two methods for determining the optimal number of ICs are proposed in this article and applied to simulated and real datasets to demonstrate their performance.

Topological invariance and spatial scaling of surface roughness in two highly eroded zones of Mexico: a comparative study

The Fractal Image Informatics toolbox (Oleschko et al., 2008 a; Torres-Argüelles et al., 2010) was applied to extract, classify and model the topological structure and dynamics of surface roughness in two highly eroded catchments of Mexico. Both areas are affected by gully erosion (Sidorchuk, 2005) and characterized by avalanche-like matter transport. Five contrasting morphological patterns were distinguished across the slope of the bare eroded surface of Faeozem (Queretaro State) while only one (apparently independent on the slope) roughness pattern was documented for Andosol (Michoacan State). We called these patterns ?the roughness clusters? and compared them in terms of metrizability, continuity, compactness, topological connectedness (global and local) and invariance, separability, and degree of ramification (Weyl, 1937). All mentioned topological measurands were correlated with the variance, skewness and kurtosis of the gray-level distribution of digital images. The morphology0 spatial dynamics of roughness clusters was measured and mapped with high precision in terms of fractal descriptors. The Hurst exponent was especially suitable to distinguish between the structure of ?turtle shell? and ?ramification? patterns (sediment producing zone A of the slope); as well as ?honeycomb? (sediment transport zone B) and ?dinosaur steps? and ?corals? (sediment deposition zone C) roughness clusters. Some other structural attributes of studied patterns were also statistically different and correlated with the variance, skewness and kurtosis of gray distribution of multiscale digital images. The scale invariance of classified roughness patterns was documented inside the range of five image resolutions. We conjectured that the geometrization of erosion patterns in terms of roughness clustering might benefit the most semi-quantitative models developed for erosion and sediment yield assessments (de Vente and Poesen, 2005).

Independent component analysis for the identification of sources of variation on an industrial nirs application

A Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) industrial application was developed by the LPF-Tagralia team, and transferred to a Spanish dehydrator company (Agrotécnica Extremeña S.L.) for the classification of dehydrator onion bulbs for breeding purposes. The automated operation of the system has allowed the classification of more than one million onion bulbs during seasons 2004 to 2008 (Table 1). The performance achieved by the original model (R2=0,65; SEC=2,28ºBrix) was enough for qualitative classification thanks to the broad range of variation of the initial population (18ºBrix). Nevertheless, a reduction of the classification performance of the model has been observed with the passing of seasons. One of the reasons put forward is the reduction of the range of variation that naturally occurs during a breeding process, the other is the variations in other parameters than the variable of interest but whose effects would probably be affecting the measurements [1]. This study points to the application of Independent Component Analysis (ICA) on this highly variable dataset coming from a NIRS industrial application for the identification of the different sources of variation present through seasons.

Some past decision theory models for euro construction model codes and for road drainage in Spain, and modest hints with multi-criteria methods for agro and environmental assurance

The authors are from UPM and are relatively grouped, and all have intervened in different academic or real cases on the subject, at different times as being of different age. With precedent from E. Torroja and A. Páez in Madrid Spain Safety Probabilistic models for concrete about 1957, now in ICOSSAR conferences, author J.M. Antón involved since autumn 1967 for euro-steel construction in CECM produced a math model for independent load superposition reductions, and using it a load coefficient pattern for codes in Rome Feb. 1969, practically adopted for European constructions, giving in JCSS Lisbon Feb. 1974 suggestion of union for concrete-steel-al.. That model uses model for loads like Gumbel type I, for 50 years for one type of load, reduced to 1 year to be added to other independent loads, the sum set in Gumbel theories to 50 years return period, there are parallel models. A complete reliability system was produced, including non linear effects as from buckling, phenomena considered somehow in actual Construction Eurocodes produced from Model Codes. The system was considered by author in CEB in presence of Hydraulic effects from rivers, floods, sea, in reference with actual practice. When redacting a Road Drainage Norm in MOPU Spain an optimization model was realized by authors giving a way to determine the figure of Return Period, 10 to 50 years, for the cases of hydraulic flows to be considered in road drainage. Satisfactory examples were a stream in SE of Spain with Gumbel Type I model and a paper of Ven Te Chow with Mississippi in Keokuk using Gumbel type II, and the model can be modernized with more varied extreme laws. In fact in the MOPU drainage norm the redacting commission acted also as expert to set a table of return periods for elements of road drainage, in fact as a multi-criteria complex decision system. These precedent ideas were used e.g. in wide Codes, indicated in symposia or meetings, but not published in journals in English, and a condensate of contributions of authors is presented. The authors are somehow involved in optimization for hydraulic and agro planning, and give modest hints of intended applications in presence of agro and environment planning as a selection of the criteria and utility functions involved in bayesian, multi-criteria or mixed decision systems. Modest consideration is made of changing in climate, and on the production and commercial systems, and on others as social and financial.

Two-layer particle filter for multiple target detection and tracking

This paper deals with the detection and tracking of an unknown number of targets using a Bayesian hierarchical model with target labels. To approximate the posterior probability density function, we develop a two-layer particle filter. One deals with track initiation, and the other with track maintenance. In addition, the parallel partition method is proposed to sample the states of the surviving targets.

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).

The &-prolog system: Exploiting independent and-parallelism

The &-Prolog system, a practical implementation of a parallel execution niodel for Prolog exploiting strict and non-strict independent and-parallelism, is described. Both automatic and manual parallelization of programs is supported. This description includes a summary of the system's language and architecture, some details of its execution model (based on the RAP-WAM model), and data on its performance on sequential workstations and shared memory multiprocessors, which is compared to that of current Prolog systems. The results to date show significant speed advantages over state-of-the-art sequential systems.

Strict and non-strict independent and-parallelism in logic programs: Correctness, efficiency, and compile-time conditions.

This paper presents some fundamental properties of independent and-parallelism and extends its applicability by enlarging the class of goals eligible for parallel execution. A simple model of (independent) and-parallel execution is proposed and issues of correctness and efficiency discussed in the light of this model. Two conditions, "strict" and "non-strict" independence, are defined and then proved sufficient to ensure correctness and efñciency of parallel execution: if goals which meet these conditions are executed in parallel the solutions obtained are the same as those produced by standard sequential execution. Also, in absence of failure, the parallel proof procedure does not genérate any additional work (with respect to standard SLD-resolution) while the actual execution time is reduced. Finally, in case of failure of any of the goals no slow down will occur. For strict independence the results are shown to hold independently of whether the parallel goals execute in the same environment or in sepárate environments. In addition, a formal basis is given for the automatic compile-time generation of independent and-parallelism: compile-time conditions to efficiently check goal independence at run-time are proposed and proved sufficient. Also, rules are given for constructing simpler conditions if information regarding the binding context of the goals to be executed in parallel is available to the compiler.

Analytic model of a cache-only memory architecture

An approximate analytic model of a shared memory multiprocessor with a Cache Only Memory Architecture (COMA), the busbased Data Difussion Machine (DDM), is presented and validated. It describes the timing and interference in the system as a function of the hardware, the protocols, the topology and the workload. Model results have been compared to results from an independent simulator. The comparison shows good model accuracy specially for non-saturated systems, where the errors in response times and device utilizations are independent of the number of processors and remain below 10% in 90% of the simulations. Therefore, the model can be used as an average performance prediction tool that avoids expensive simulations in the design of systems with many processors.

IDIOM: Integrating dependent and-, independent and-, and or-parallelism

Independent and-parallelism, dependent and-parallelism and or-parallelism are the three main forms of implicit parallelism present in logic programs. In this paper we present a model, IDIOM, which exploits all three forms of parallelism in a single framework. IDIOM is based on a combination of the Basic Andorra Model and the Extended And-Or Tree Model. Our model supports both Prolog as well as the fíat concurrent logic languages. We discuss the issues that arise in combining the three forms of parallelism, and our solutions to them. We also present an implementation scheme, based on binding arrays, for implementing IDIOM.

Non-strict independent and-parallelism

This paper presents and develops a generalized concept of Non-Strict Independent And Parallelism (NSIAP). NSIAP extends the applicability of Independent And- Parallelism (IAP) by enlarging the class of goals which are eligible for parallel execution. At the same time it maintains IAP's ability to run non-deterministic goals in parallel and to preserve the computational complexity expected in the execution of the program by the programmer. First, a parallel execution framework is defined and some fundamental correctness results, in the sense of equivalence of solutions with the sequential model, are discussed for this framework. The issue of efficiency is then considered. Two new definitions of NSI are given for the cases of puré and impure goals respectively and efficiency results are provided for programs parallelized under these definitions which include treatment of the case of goal failure: not only is reduction of execution time guaranteed (modulo run-time overheads) in the absence of failure but it is also shown that in the worst case of failure no speed-down will occur. In addition to applying to NSI, these results carry over and complete previous results shown in the context of IAP which did not deal with the case of goal failure. Finally, some practical examples of the application of the NSIAP concept to the parallelization of a set of programs are presented and performance results, showing the advantage of using NSI, are given.

&-prolog and its performance: exploiting independent and-parallelism

An Independent And-Parallel Prolog model and implementation, &-Prolog, are described. The description includes a summary of the system's architecture, some details of its execution model (based on the RAP-WAM model), and most importantly, its performance on sequential workstations and shared memory multiprocessors as compared with state-of-the-art Prolog systems. Speedup curves are provided for a collection of benchmark programs which demónstrate significant speed advantages over state-of the art sequential systems.

Distributed collaborative processing in wireless sensor networks with application to target localization and beamforming

Abstract The proliferation of wireless sensor networks and the variety of envisioned applications associated with them has motivated the development of distributed algorithms for collaborative processing over networked systems. One of the applications that has attracted the attention of the researchers is that of target localization where the nodes of the network try to estimate the position of an unknown target that lies within its coverage area. Particularly challenging is the problem of estimating the target’s position when we use received signal strength indicator (RSSI) due to the nonlinear relationship between the measured signal and the true position of the target. Many of the existing approaches suffer either from high computational complexity (e.g., particle filters) or lack of accuracy. Further, many of the proposed solutions are centralized which make their application to a sensor network questionable. Depending on the application at hand and, from a practical perspective it could be convenient to find a balance between localization accuracy and complexity. Into this direction we approach the maximum likelihood location estimation problem by solving a suboptimal (and more tractable) problem. One of the main advantages of the proposed scheme is that it allows for a decentralized implementation using distributed processing tools (e.g., consensus and convex optimization) and therefore, it is very suitable to be implemented in real sensor networks. If further accuracy is needed an additional refinement step could be performed around the found solution. Under the assumption of independent noise among the nodes such local search can be done in a fully distributed way using a distributed version of the Gauss-Newton method based on consensus. Regardless of the underlying application or function of the sensor network it is al¬ways necessary to have a mechanism for data reporting. While some approaches use a special kind of nodes (called sink nodes) for data harvesting and forwarding to the outside world, there are however some scenarios where such an approach is impractical or even impossible to deploy. Further, such sink nodes become a bottleneck in terms of traffic flow and power consumption. To overcome these issues instead of using sink nodes for data reporting one could use collaborative beamforming techniques to forward directly the generated data to a base station or gateway to the outside world. In a dis-tributed environment like a sensor network nodes cooperate in order to form a virtual antenna array that can exploit the benefits of multi-antenna communications. In col-laborative beamforming nodes synchronize their phases in order to add constructively at the receiver. Some of the inconveniences associated with collaborative beamforming techniques is that there is no control over the radiation pattern since it is treated as a random quantity. This may cause interference to other coexisting systems and fast bat-tery depletion at the nodes. Since energy-efficiency is a major design issue we consider the development of a distributed collaborative beamforming scheme that maximizes the network lifetime while meeting some quality of service (QoS) requirement at the re¬ceiver side. Using local information about battery status and channel conditions we find distributed algorithms that converge to the optimal centralized beamformer. While in the first part we consider only battery depletion due to communications beamforming, we extend the model to account for more realistic scenarios by the introduction of an additional random energy consumption. It is shown how the new problem generalizes the original one and under which conditions it is easily solvable. By formulating the problem under the energy-efficiency perspective the network’s lifetime is significantly improved. Resumen La proliferación de las redes inalámbricas de sensores junto con la gran variedad de posi¬bles aplicaciones relacionadas, han motivado el desarrollo de herramientas y algoritmos necesarios para el procesado cooperativo en sistemas distribuidos. Una de las aplicaciones que suscitado mayor interés entre la comunidad científica es la de localization, donde el conjunto de nodos de la red intenta estimar la posición de un blanco localizado dentro de su área de cobertura. El problema de la localization es especialmente desafiante cuando se usan niveles de energía de la seal recibida (RSSI por sus siglas en inglés) como medida para la localization. El principal inconveniente reside en el hecho que el nivel de señal recibida no sigue una relación lineal con la posición del blanco. Muchas de las soluciones actuales al problema de localization usando RSSI se basan en complejos esquemas centralizados como filtros de partículas, mientas que en otras se basan en esquemas mucho más simples pero con menor precisión. Además, en muchos casos las estrategias son centralizadas lo que resulta poco prácticos para su implementación en redes de sensores. Desde un punto de vista práctico y de implementation, es conveniente, para ciertos escenarios y aplicaciones, el desarrollo de alternativas que ofrezcan un compromiso entre complejidad y precisión. En esta línea, en lugar de abordar directamente el problema de la estimación de la posición del blanco bajo el criterio de máxima verosimilitud, proponemos usar una formulación subóptima del problema más manejable analíticamente y que ofrece la ventaja de permitir en¬contrar la solución al problema de localization de una forma totalmente distribuida, convirtiéndola así en una solución atractiva dentro del contexto de redes inalámbricas de sensores. Para ello, se usan herramientas de procesado distribuido como los algorit¬mos de consenso y de optimización convexa en sistemas distribuidos. Para aplicaciones donde se requiera de un mayor grado de precisión se propone una estrategia que con¬siste en la optimización local de la función de verosimilitud entorno a la estimación inicialmente obtenida. Esta optimización se puede realizar de forma descentralizada usando una versión basada en consenso del método de Gauss-Newton siempre y cuando asumamos independencia de los ruidos de medida en los diferentes nodos. Independientemente de la aplicación subyacente de la red de sensores, es necesario tener un mecanismo que permita recopilar los datos provenientes de la red de sensores. Una forma de hacerlo es mediante el uso de uno o varios nodos especiales, llamados nodos “sumidero”, (sink en inglés) que actúen como centros recolectores de información y que estarán equipados con hardware adicional que les permita la interacción con el exterior de la red. La principal desventaja de esta estrategia es que dichos nodos se convierten en cuellos de botella en cuanto a tráfico y capacidad de cálculo. Como alter¬nativa se pueden usar técnicas cooperativas de conformación de haz (beamforming en inglés) de manera que el conjunto de la red puede verse como un único sistema virtual de múltiples antenas y, por tanto, que exploten los beneficios que ofrecen las comu¬nicaciones con múltiples antenas. Para ello, los distintos nodos de la red sincronizan sus transmisiones de manera que se produce una interferencia constructiva en el recep¬tor. No obstante, las actuales técnicas se basan en resultados promedios y asintóticos, cuando el número de nodos es muy grande. Para una configuración específica se pierde el control sobre el diagrama de radiación causando posibles interferencias sobre sis¬temas coexistentes o gastando más potencia de la requerida. La eficiencia energética es una cuestión capital en las redes inalámbricas de sensores ya que los nodos están equipados con baterías. Es por tanto muy importante preservar la batería evitando cambios innecesarios y el consecuente aumento de costes. Bajo estas consideraciones, se propone un esquema de conformación de haz que maximice el tiempo de vida útil de la red, entendiendo como tal el máximo tiempo que la red puede estar operativa garantizando unos requisitos de calidad de servicio (QoS por sus siglas en inglés) que permitan una decodificación fiable de la señal recibida en la estación base. Se proponen además algoritmos distribuidos que convergen a la solución centralizada. Inicialmente se considera que la única causa de consumo energético se debe a las comunicaciones con la estación base. Este modelo de consumo energético es modificado para tener en cuenta otras formas de consumo de energía derivadas de procesos inherentes al funcionamiento de la red como la adquisición y procesado de datos, las comunicaciones locales entre nodos, etc. Dicho consumo adicional de energía se modela como una variable aleatoria en cada nodo. Se cambia por tanto, a un escenario probabilístico que generaliza el caso determinista y se proporcionan condiciones bajo las cuales el problema se puede resolver de forma eficiente. Se demuestra que el tiempo de vida de la red mejora de forma significativa usando el criterio propuesto de eficiencia energética.