Exploring Semantic Textual Similarity

[EN]Measuring semantic similarity and relatedness between textual items (words, sentences, paragraphs or even documents) is a very important research area in Natural Language Processing (NLP). In fact, it has many practical applications in other NLP tasks. For instance, Word Sense Disambiguation, Textual Entailment, Paraphrase detection, Machine Translation, Summarization and other related tasks such as Information Retrieval or Question Answering. In this masther thesis we study di erent approaches to compute the semantic similarity between textual items. In the framework of the european PATHS project1, we also evaluate a knowledge-base method on a dataset of cultural item descriptions. Additionaly, we describe the work carried out for the Semantic Textual Similarity (STS) shared task of SemEval-2012. This work has involved supporting the creation of datasets for similarity tasks, as well as the organization of the task itself.

Robust handling of out-of-vocabulary words in deep language processing

Tese de doutoramento, Informática (Ciências da Computação), Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Ciências, 2014

Désambiguisation de sens par modèles de contextes et son application à la Recherche d’Information

Il est connu que les problèmes d'ambiguïté de la langue ont un effet néfaste sur les résultats des systèmes de Recherche d'Information (RI). Toutefois, les efforts de recherche visant à intégrer des techniques de Désambiguisation de Sens (DS) à la RI n'ont pas porté fruit. La plupart des études sur le sujet obtiennent effectivement des résultats négatifs ou peu convaincants. De plus, des investigations basées sur l'ajout d'ambiguïté artificielle concluent qu'il faudrait une très haute précision de désambiguation pour arriver à un effet positif. Ce mémoire vise à développer de nouvelles approches plus performantes et efficaces, se concentrant sur l'utilisation de statistiques de cooccurrence afin de construire des modèles de contexte. Ces modèles pourront ensuite servir à effectuer une discrimination de sens entre une requête et les documents d'une collection. Dans ce mémoire à deux parties, nous ferons tout d'abord une investigation de la force de la relation entre un mot et les mots présents dans son contexte, proposant une méthode d'apprentissage du poids d'un mot de contexte en fonction de sa distance du mot modélisé dans le document. Cette méthode repose sur l'idée que des modèles de contextes faits à partir d'échantillons aléatoires de mots en contexte devraient être similaires. Des expériences en anglais et en japonais montrent que la force de relation en fonction de la distance suit généralement une loi de puissance négative. Les poids résultant des expériences sont ensuite utilisés dans la construction de systèmes de DS Bayes Naïfs. Des évaluations de ces systèmes sur les données de l'atelier Semeval en anglais pour la tâche Semeval-2007 English Lexical Sample, puis en japonais pour la tâche Semeval-2010 Japanese WSD, montrent que les systèmes ont des résultats comparables à l'état de l'art, bien qu'ils soient bien plus légers, et ne dépendent pas d'outils ou de ressources linguistiques. La deuxième partie de ce mémoire vise à adapter les méthodes développées à des applications de Recherche d'Information. Ces applications ont la difficulté additionnelle de ne pas pouvoir dépendre de données créées manuellement. Nous proposons donc des modèles de contextes à variables latentes basés sur l'Allocation Dirichlet Latente (LDA). Ceux-ci seront combinés à la méthodes de vraisemblance de requête par modèles de langue. En évaluant le système résultant sur trois collections de la conférence TREC (Text REtrieval Conference), nous observons une amélioration proportionnelle moyenne de 12% du MAP et 23% du GMAP. Les gains se font surtout sur les requêtes difficiles, augmentant la stabilité des résultats. Ces expériences seraient la première application positive de techniques de DS sur des tâches de RI standard.

Apprentissage d'espaces sémantiques

Dans cette dissertation, nous présentons plusieurs techniques d’apprentissage d’espaces sémantiques pour plusieurs domaines, par exemple des mots et des images, mais aussi à l’intersection de différents domaines. Un espace de représentation est appelé sémantique si des entités jugées similaires par un être humain, ont leur similarité préservée dans cet espace. La première publication présente un enchaînement de méthodes d’apprentissage incluant plusieurs techniques d’apprentissage non supervisé qui nous a permis de remporter la compétition “Unsupervised and Transfer Learning Challenge” en 2011. Le deuxième article présente une manière d’extraire de l’information à partir d’un contexte structuré (177 détecteurs d’objets à différentes positions et échelles). On montrera que l’utilisation de la structure des données combinée à un apprentissage non supervisé permet de réduire la dimensionnalité de 97% tout en améliorant les performances de reconnaissance de scènes de +5% à +11% selon l’ensemble de données. Dans le troisième travail, on s’intéresse à la structure apprise par les réseaux de neurones profonds utilisés dans les deux précédentes publications. Plusieurs hypothèses sont présentées et testées expérimentalement montrant que l’espace appris a de meilleures propriétés de mixage (facilitant l’exploration de différentes classes durant le processus d’échantillonnage). Pour la quatrième publication, on s’intéresse à résoudre un problème d’analyse syntaxique et sémantique avec des réseaux de neurones récurrents appris sur des fenêtres de contexte de mots. Dans notre cinquième travail, nous proposons une façon d’effectuer de la recherche d’image ”augmentée” en apprenant un espace sémantique joint où une recherche d’image contenant un objet retournerait aussi des images des parties de l’objet, par exemple une recherche retournant des images de ”voiture” retournerait aussi des images de ”pare-brises”, ”coffres”, ”roues” en plus des images initiales.

Dynamic Document Generation from Semantic Web Data

This talk will present an overview of the ongoing ERCIM project SMARTDOCS (SeMAntically-cReaTed DOCuments) which aims at automatically generating webpages from RDF data. It will particularly focus on the current issues and the investigated solutions in the different modules of the project, which are related to document planning, natural language generation and multimedia perspectives. The second part of the talk will be dedicated to the KODA annotation system, which is a knowledge-base-agnostic annotator designed to provide the RDF annotations required in the document generation process.

A Comparative Study of Two Semantic Systems: Body Russian and Russian Phraseology

Grigorij Kreidlin (Russia). A Comparative Study of Two Semantic Systems: Body Russian and Russian Phraseology. Mr. Kreidlin teaches in the Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics of the State University of Humanities in Moscow and worked on this project from August 1996 to July 1998. The classical approach to non-verbal and verbal oral communication is based on a traditional separation of body and mind. Linguists studied words and phrasemes, the products of mind activities, while gestures, facial expressions, postures and other forms of body language were left to anthropologists, psychologists, physiologists, and indeed to anyone but linguists. Only recently have linguists begun to turn their attention to gestures and semiotic and cognitive paradigms are now appearing that raise the question of designing an integral model for the unified description of non-verbal and verbal communicative behaviour. This project attempted to elaborate lexical and semantic fragments of such a model, producing a co-ordinated semantic description of the main Russian gestures (including gestures proper, postures and facial expressions) and their natural language analogues. The concept of emblematic gestures and gestural phrasemes and of their semantic links permitted an appropriate description of the transformation of a body as a purely physical substance into a body as a carrier of essential attributes of Russian culture - the semiotic process called the culturalisation of the human body. Here the human body embodies a system of cultural values and displays them in a text within the area of phraseology and some other important language domains. The goal of this research was to develop a theory that would account for the fundamental peculiarities of the process. The model proposed is based on the unified lexicographic representation of verbal and non-verbal units in the Dictionary of Russian Gestures, which the Mr. Kreidlin had earlier complied in collaboration with a group of his students. The Dictionary was originally oriented only towards reflecting how the lexical competence of Russian body language is represented in the Russian mind. Now a special type of phraseological zone has been designed to reflect explicitly semantic relationships between the gestures in the entries and phrasemes and to provide the necessary information for a detailed description of these. All the definitions, rules of usage and the established correlations are written in a semantic meta-language. Several classes of Russian gestural phrasemes were identified, including those phrasemes and idioms with semantic definitions close to those of the corresponding gestures, those phraseological units that have lost touch with the related gestures (although etymologically they are derived from gestures that have gone out of use), and phrasemes and idioms which have semantic traces or reflexes inherited from the meaning of the related gestures. The basic assumptions and practical considerations underlying the work were as follows. (1) To compare meanings one has to be able to state them. To state the meaning of a gesture or a phraseological expression, one needs a formal semantic meta-language of propositional character that represents the cognitive and mental aspects of the codes. (2) The semantic contrastive analysis of any semiotic codes used in person-to-person communication also requires a single semantic meta-language, i.e. a formal semantic language of description,. This language must be as linguistically and culturally independent as possible and yet must be open to interpretation through any culture and code. Another possible method of conducting comparative verbal-non-verbal semantic research is to work with different semantic meta-languages and semantic nets and to learn how to combine them, translate from one to another, etc. in order to reach a common basis for the subsequent comparison of units. (3) The practical work in defining phraseological units and organising the phraseological zone in the Dictionary of Russian Gestures unexpectedly showed that semantic links between gestures and gestural phrasemes are reflected not only in common semantic elements and syntactic structure of semantic propositions, but also in general and partial cognitive operations that are made over semantic definitions. (4) In comparative semantic analysis one should take into account different values and roles of inner form and image components in the semantic representation of non-verbal and verbal units. (5) For the most part, gestural phrasemes are direct semantic derivatives of gestures. The cognitive and formal techniques can be regarded as typological features for the future functional-semantic classification of gestural phrasemes: two phrasemes whose meaning can be obtained by the same cognitive or purely syntactic operations (or types of operations) over the meanings of the corresponding gestures, belong by definition to one and the same class. The nature of many cognitive operations has not been studied well so far, but the first steps towards its comprehension and description have been taken. The research identified 25 logically possible classes of relationships between a gesture and a gestural phraseme. The calculation is based on theoretically possible formal (set-theory) correlations between signifiers and signified of the non-verbal and verbal units. However, in order to examine which of them are realised in practice a complete semantic and lexicographic description of all (not only central) everyday emblems and gestural phrasemes is required and this unfortunately does not yet exist. Mr. Kreidlin suggests that the results of the comparative analysis of verbal and non-verbal units could also be used in other research areas such as the lexicography of emotions.

BIOMEDICAL LANGUAGE UNDERSTANDING AND EXTRACTION (BLUE-TEXT): A MINIMAL SYNTACTIC, SEMANTIC METHOD

Clinical text understanding (CTU) is of interest to health informatics because critical clinical information frequently represented as unconstrained text in electronic health records are extensively used by human experts to guide clinical practice, decision making, and to document delivery of care, but are largely unusable by information systems for queries and computations. Recent initiatives advocating for translational research call for generation of technologies that can integrate structured clinical data with unstructured data, provide a unified interface to all data, and contextualize clinical information for reuse in multidisciplinary and collaborative environment envisioned by CTSA program. This implies that technologies for the processing and interpretation of clinical text should be evaluated not only in terms of their validity and reliability in their intended environment, but also in light of their interoperability, and ability to support information integration and contextualization in a distributed and dynamic environment. This vision adds a new layer of information representation requirements that needs to be accounted for when conceptualizing implementation or acquisition of clinical text processing tools and technologies for multidisciplinary research. On the other hand, electronic health records frequently contain unconstrained clinical text with high variability in use of terms and documentation practices, and without commitmentto grammatical or syntactic structure of the language (e.g. Triage notes, physician and nurse notes, chief complaints, etc). This hinders performance of natural language processing technologies which typically rely heavily on the syntax of language and grammatical structure of the text. This document introduces our method to transform unconstrained clinical text found in electronic health information systems to a formal (computationally understandable) representation that is suitable for querying, integration, contextualization and reuse, and is resilient to the grammatical and syntactic irregularities of the clinical text. We present our design rationale, method, and results of evaluation in processing chief complaints and triage notes from 8 different emergency departments in Houston Texas. At the end, we will discuss significance of our contribution in enabling use of clinical text in a practical bio-surveillance setting.

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).

Cross-lingual ontology matching as a challenge for the Multilingual Semantic Web

Recently, the Semantic Web has experienced significant advancements in standards and techniques, as well as in the amount of semantic information available online. Nevertheless, mechanisms are still needed to automatically reconcile information when it is expressed in different natural languages on the Web of Data, in order to improve the access to semantic information across language barriers. In this context several challenges arise [1], such as: (i) ontology translation/localization, (ii) cross-lingual ontology mappings, (iii) representation of multilingual lexical information, and (iv) cross-lingual access and querying of linked data. In the following we will focus on the second challenge, which is the necessity of establishing, representing and storing cross-lingual links among semantic information on the Web. In fact, in a “truly” multilingual Semantic Web, semantic data with lexical representations in one natural language would be mapped to equivalent or related information in other languages, thus making navigation across multilingual information possible for software agents.

Diseño e implementación de un módulo para la estructuración de notas clínicas

El presente Trabajo Fin de Grado (TFG) surge de la necesidad de disponer de tecnologías que faciliten el Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural (NLP) en español dentro del sector de la medicina. Centrado concretamente en la extracción de conocimiento de las historias clínicas electrónicas (HCE), que recogen toda la información relacionada con la salud del paciente y en particular, de los documentos recogidos en dichas historias, pretende la obtención de todos los términos relacionados con la medicina. El Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural permite la obtención de datos estructurados a partir de información no estructurada. Estas técnicas permiten un análisis de texto que genera etiquetas aportando significado semántico a las palabras para la manipulación de información. A partir de la investigación realizada del estado del arte en NLP y de las tecnologías existentes para otras lenguas, se propone como solución un módulo de anotación de términos médicos extraídos de documentos clínicos. Como términos médicos se han considerado síntomas, enfermedades, partes del cuerpo o tratamientos obtenidos de UMLS, una ontología categorizada que agrega distintas fuentes de datos médicos. Se ha realizado el diseño y la implementación del módulo así como el análisis de los resultados obtenidos realizando una evaluación con treinta y dos documentos que contenían 1372 menciones de terminología médica y que han dado un resultado medio de Precisión: 70,4%, Recall: 36,2%, Accuracy: 31,4% y F-Measure: 47,2%.---ABSTRACT---This Final Thesis arises from the need for technologies that facilitate the Natural Language Processing (NLP) in Spanish in the medical sector. Specifically it is focused on extracting knowledge from Electronic Health Records (EHR), which contain all the information related to the patient's health and, in particular, it expects to obtain all the terms related to medicine from the documents contained in these records. Natural Language Processing allows us to obtain structured information from unstructured data. These techniques enable analysis of text generating labels providing semantic meaning to words for handling information. From the investigation of the state of the art in NLP and existing technologies in other languages, an annotation module of medical terms extracted from clinical documents is proposed as a solution. Symptoms, diseases, body parts or treatments are considered part of the medical terms contained in UMLS ontology which is categorized joining different sources of medical data. This project has completed the design and implementation of a module and the analysis of the results have been obtained. Thirty two documents which contain 1372 mentions of medical terminology have been evaluated and the average results obtained are: Precision: 70.4% Recall: 36.2% Accuracy: 31.4% and F-Measure: 47.2%.

Methods and Techniques for Segmentation of Consumers in Social Media

Los medios sociales han revolucionado la manera en la que los consumidores se relacionan entre sí y con las marcas. Las opiniones publicadas en dichos medios tienen un poder de influencia en las decisiones de compra tan importante como las campañas de publicidad. En consecuencia, los profesionales del marketing cada vez dedican mayores esfuerzos e inversión a la obtención de indicadores que permitan medir el estado de salud de las marcas a partir de los contenidos digitales generados por sus consumidores. Dada la naturaleza no estructurada de los contenidos publicados en los medios sociales, la tecnología usada para procesar dichos contenidos ha menudo implementa técnicas de Inteligencia Artificial, tales como algoritmos de procesamiento de lenguaje natural, aprendizaje automático y análisis semántico. Esta tesis, contribuye al estado de la cuestión, con un modelo que permite estructurar e integrar la información publicada en medios sociales, y una serie de técnicas cuyos objetivos son la identificación de consumidores, así como la segmentación psicográfica y sociodemográfica de los mismos. La técnica de identificación de consumidores se basa en la huella digital de los dispositivos que utilizan para navegar por la Web y es tolerante a los cambios que se producen con frecuencia en dicha huella digital. Las técnicas de segmentación psicográfica descritas obtienen la posición en el embudo de compra de los consumidores y permiten clasificar las opiniones en función de una serie de atributos de marketing. Finalmente, las técnicas de segmentación sociodemográfica permiten obtener el lugar de residencia y el género de los consumidores. ABSTRACT Social media has revolutionised the way in which consumers relate to each other and with brands. The opinions published in social media have a power of influencing purchase decisions as important as advertising campaigns. Consequently, marketers are increasing efforts and investments for obtaining indicators to measure brand health from the digital content generated by consumers. Given the unstructured nature of social media contents, the technology used for processing such contents often implements Artificial Intelligence techniques, such as natural language processing, machine learning and semantic analysis algorithms. This thesis contributes to the State of the Art, with a model for structuring and integrating the information posted on social media, and a number of techniques whose objectives are the identification of consumers, as well as their socio-demographic and psychographic segmentation. The consumer identification technique is based on the fingerprint of the devices they use to surf the Web and is tolerant to the changes that occur frequently in such fingerprint. The psychographic profiling techniques described infer the position of consumer in the purchase funnel, and allow to classify the opinions based on a series of marketing attributes. Finally, the socio-demographic profiling techniques allow to obtain the residence and gender of consumers.

A general proposal to multilingual information access based on syntactic-semantic patterns

In the last few years, there has been a wide development in the research on textual information systems. The goal is to improve these systems in order to allow an easy localization, treatment and access to the information stored in digital format (Digital Databases, Documental Databases, and so on). There are lots of applications focused on information access (for example, Web-search systems like Google or Altavista). However, these applications have problems when they must access to cross-language information, or when they need to show information in a language different from the one of the query. This paper explores the use of syntactic-sematic patterns as a method to access to multilingual information, and revise, in the case of Information Retrieval, where it is possible and useful to employ patterns when it comes to the multilingual and interactive aspects. On the one hand, the multilingual aspects that are going to be studied are the ones related to the access to documents in different languages from the one of the query, as well as the automatic translation of the document, i.e. a machine translation system based on patterns. On the other hand, this paper is going to go deep into the interactive aspects related to the reformulation of a query based on the syntactic-semantic pattern of the request.

Aplicaciones de procesamiento de lenguaje natural

El campo de procesamiento de lenguaje natural (PLN), ha tenido un gran crecimiento en los últimos años; sus áreas de investigación incluyen: recuperación y extracción de información, minería de datos, traducción automática, sistemas de búsquedas de respuestas, generación de resúmenes automáticos, análisis de sentimientos, entre otras. En este artículo se presentan conceptos y algunas herramientas con el fin de contribuir al entendimiento del procesamiento de texto con técnicas de PLN, con el propósito de extraer información relevante que pueda ser usada en un gran rango de aplicaciones. Se pueden desarrollar clasificadores automáticos que permitan categorizar documentos y recomendar etiquetas; estos clasificadores deben ser independientes de la plataforma, fácilmente personalizables para poder ser integrados en diferentes proyectos y que sean capaces de aprender a partir de ejemplos. En el presente artículo se introducen estos algoritmos de clasificación, se analizan algunas herramientas de código abierto disponibles actualmente para llevar a cabo estas tareas y se comparan diversas implementaciones utilizando la métrica F en la evaluación de los clasificadores.

Application of Text Summarization techniques to the Geographical Information Retrieval task

Automatic Text Summarization has been shown to be useful for Natural Language Processing tasks such as Question Answering or Text Classification and other related fields of computer science such as Information Retrieval. Since Geographical Information Retrieval can be considered as an extension of the Information Retrieval field, the generation of summaries could be integrated into these systems by acting as an intermediate stage, with the purpose of reducing the document length. In this manner, the access time for information searching will be improved, while at the same time relevant documents will be also retrieved. Therefore, in this paper we propose the generation of two types of summaries (generic and geographical) applying several compression rates in order to evaluate their effectiveness in the Geographical Information Retrieval task. The evaluation has been carried out using GeoCLEF as evaluation framework and following an Information Retrieval perspective without considering the geo-reranking phase commonly used in these systems. Although single-document summarization has not performed well in general, the slight improvements obtained for some types of the proposed summaries, particularly for those based on geographical information, made us believe that the integration of Text Summarization with Geographical Information Retrieval may be beneficial, and consequently, the experimental set-up developed in this research work serves as a basis for further investigations in this field.

Semantic search meets the Web

While semantic search technologies have been proven to work well in specific domains, they still have to confront two main challenges to scale up to the Web in its entirety. In this work we address this issue with a novel semantic search system that a) provides the user with the capability to query Semantic Web information using natural language, by means of an ontology-based Question Answering (QA) system [14] and b) complements the specific answers retrieved during the QA process with a ranked list of documents from the Web [3]. Our results show that ontology-based semantic search capabilities can be used to complement and enhance keyword search technologies.