Language recognition using phonotactic-based shifted delta coefficients and multiple phone recognizers

A new language recognition technique based on the application of the philosophy of the Shifted Delta Coefficients (SDC) to phone log-likelihood ratio features (PLLR) is described. The new methodology allows the incorporation of long-span phonetic information at a frame-by-frame level while dealing with the temporal length of each phone unit. The proposed features are used to train an i-vector based system and tested on the Albayzin LRE 2012 dataset. The results show a relative improvement of 33.3% in Cavg in comparison with different state-of-the-art acoustic i-vector based systems. On the other hand, the integration of parallel phone ASR systems where each one is used to generate multiple PLLR coefficients which are stacked together and then projected into a reduced dimension are also presented. Finally, the paper shows how the incorporation of state information from the phone ASR contributes to provide additional improvements and how the fusion with the other acoustic and phonotactic systems provides an important improvement of 25.8% over the system presented during the competition.

Context-free and context-sensitive dynamics in recurrent neural networks

Continuous-valued recurrent neural networks can learn mechanisms for processing context-free languages. The dynamics of such networks is usually based on damped oscillation around fixed points in state space and requires that the dynamical components are arranged in certain ways. It is shown that qualitatively similar dynamics with similar constraints hold for a(n)b(n)c(n), a context-sensitive language. The additional difficulty with a(n)b(n)c(n), compared with the context-free language a(n)b(n), consists of 'counting up' and 'counting down' letters simultaneously. The network solution is to oscillate in two principal dimensions, one for counting up and one for counting down. This study focuses on the dynamics employed by the sequential cascaded network, in contrast to the simple recurrent network, and the use of backpropagation through time. Found solutions generalize well beyond training data, however, learning is not reliable. The contribution of this study lies in demonstrating how the dynamics in recurrent neural networks that process context-free languages can also be employed in processing some context-sensitive languages (traditionally thought of as requiring additional computation resources). This continuity of mechanism between language classes contributes to our understanding of neural networks in modelling language learning and processing.

On learning context-free and context-sensitive languages

The long short-term memory (LSTM) is not the only neural network which learns a context sensitive language. Second-order sequential cascaded networks (SCNs) are able to induce means from a finite fragment of a context-sensitive language for processing strings outside the training set. The dynamical behavior of the SCN is qualitatively distinct from that observed in LSTM networks. Differences in performance and dynamics are discussed.

Learning the dynamics of embedded clauses

Recent work by Siegelmann has shown that the computational power of recurrent neural networks matches that of Turing Machines. One important implication is that complex language classes (infinite languages with embedded clauses) can be represented in neural networks. Proofs are based on a fractal encoding of states to simulate the memory and operations of stacks. In the present work, it is shown that similar stack-like dynamics can be learned in recurrent neural networks from simple sequence prediction tasks. Two main types of network solutions are found and described qualitatively as dynamical systems: damped oscillation and entangled spiraling around fixed points. The potential and limitations of each solution type are established in terms of generalization on two different context-free languages. Both solution types constitute novel stack implementations - generally in line with Siegelmann's theoretical work - which supply insights into how embedded structures of languages can be handled in analog hardware.

Analysis and recognition of similar environmental sounds

Dissertação apresentada na Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa para obtenção do grau de Mestre em Engenharia Informática

Interface caligráfica de escrita no ar

Na atualidade, está a emergir um novo paradigma de interação, designado por Natural User Interface (NUI) para reconhecimento de gestos produzidos com o corpo do utilizador. O dispositivo de interação Microsoft Kinect foi inicialmente concebido para controlo de videojogos, para a consola Xbox360. Este dispositivo demonstra ser uma aposta viável para explorar outras áreas, como a do apoio ao processo de ensino e de aprendizagem para crianças do ensino básico. O protótipo desenvolvido visa definir um modo de interação baseado no desenho de letras no ar, e realizar a interpretação dos símbolos desenhados, usando os reconhecedores de padrões Kernel Discriminant Analysis (KDA), Support Vector Machines (SVM) e $N. O desenvolvimento deste projeto baseou-se no estudo dos diferentes dispositivos NUI disponíveis no mercado, bibliotecas de desenvolvimento NUI para este tipo de dispositivos e algoritmos de reconhecimento de padrões. Com base nos dois elementos iniciais, foi possível obter uma visão mais concreta de qual o hardware e software disponíveis indicados à persecução do objetivo pretendido. O reconhecimento de padrões constitui um tema bastante extenso e complexo, de modo que foi necessária a seleção de um conjunto limitado deste tipo de algoritmos, realizando os respetivos testes por forma a determinar qual o que melhor se adequava ao objetivo pretendido. Aplicando as mesmas condições aos três algoritmos de reconhecimento de padrões permitiu avaliar as suas capacidades e determinar o $N como o que apresentou maior eficácia no reconhecimento. Por último, tentou-se averiguar a viabilidade do protótipo desenvolvido, tendo sido testado num universo de elementos de duas faixas etárias para determinar a capacidade de adaptação e aprendizagem destes dois grupos. Neste estudo, constatou-se um melhor desempenho inicial ao modo de interação do grupo de idade mais avançada. Contudo, o grupo mais jovem foi revelando uma evolutiva capacidade de adaptação a este modo de interação melhorando progressivamente os resultados.

ICR a partir de traços d'escriptura natural captats amb un bolígraf digital

Aquest projecte consisteix en la realització d’una anàlisi de diferents reconeixedors de caracters manuscrits, concretament de nombres, per a una possible implantació en la digitalització de formularis en la industria. Al llarg del document s’estudien dos reconeixedors diferents, concretament l’incorporat al paquet "Tablet PC and Recognition Pack" de Microsoft i el Heloise Hse, proporcionat per la Universitat de Berkeley a Califòrnia.

Distinguishing general concepts from individuals: an automatic coarse-grained classifier

Named entity recognizers are unable to distinguish if a term is a general concept as "scientist" or an individual as "Einstein". In this paper we explore the possibility to reach this goal combining two basic approaches: (i) Super Sense Tagging (SST) and (ii) YAGO. Thanks to these two powerful tools we could automatically create a corpus set in order to train the SuperSense Tagger. The general F1 is over 76% and the model is publicly available.

La plateforme Bubbles : un outil d'investigation des différences individuelles de stratégies de reconnaissance de l'identité des visages.

L’objectif de cette recherche est la création d’une plateforme en ligne qui permettrait d’examiner les différences individuelles de stratégies de traitement de l’information visuelle dans différentes tâches de catégorisation des visages. Le but d’une telle plateforme est de récolter des données de participants géographiquement dispersés et dont les habiletés en reconnaissance des visages sont variables. En effet, de nombreuses études ont montré qu’il existe de grande variabilité dans le spectre des habiletés à reconnaître les visages, allant de la prosopagnosie développementale (Susilo & Duchaine, 2013), un trouble de reconnaissance des visages en l’absence de lésion cérébrale, aux super-recognizers, des individus dont les habiletés en reconnaissance des visages sont au-dessus de la moyenne (Russell, Duchaine & Nakayama, 2009). Entre ces deux extrêmes, les habiletés en reconnaissance des visages dans la population normale varient. Afin de démontrer la faisabilité de la création d’une telle plateforme pour des individus d’habiletés très variables, nous avons adapté une tâche de reconnaissance de l’identité des visages de célébrités utilisant la méthode Bubbles (Gosselin & Schyns, 2001) et avons recruté 14 sujets contrôles et un sujet présentant une prosopagnosie développementale. Nous avons pu mettre en évidence l’importance des yeux et de la bouche dans l’identification des visages chez les sujets « normaux ». Les meilleurs participants semblent, au contraire, utiliser majoritairement le côté gauche du visage (l’œil gauche et le côté gauche de la bouche).

Fatiga Laríngea: efectos del uso prolongado de la voz

La voz como herramienta de trabajo de los docentes, puede afectarse por su uso prolongado, abuso o conductas de mal uso, que desencadenan limitaciones funcionales de origen laboral. Uno de los síntomas más frecuentes de quienes usan masivamente su voz con fines ocupacionales es la fatiga laríngea (FL), o cansancio vocal por debilitamiento muscular. El presente estudio quasiexperimental longitudinal pre- postest evaluó el efecto que el uso de la voz, analizando variables sociodemográficas, de salud y trabajo, los estilos de vida y los factores de riesgo ocupacionales, pero principalmente el efecto que produce el uso prolongado de la voz sobre las variables físico acústicas después de un día de trabajo, en 99 docentes de una institución de educación superior en Colombia, en comparación con trabajadores con menor uso vocal. Se aplicó un cuestionario de sintomatología vocal para controlar los sesgos, se le tomaron grabaciones pre y post jornada a cada trabajador con el software Speech Analizer® y se reportaron los cambios subjetivos tras un día de trabajo a cada trabajador. Fueron hallados cambios en las variables físico – acústicas como efecto del uso prolongado de la voz después de un día de trabajo en los dos grupos de participantes, en cuyo caso el efecto fue más significativo en los docentes que en los administrativos – no docentes. El riesgo de presentar trastornos de la voz se asoció directamente con la exposición a factores de riesgo ocupacionales y aquellos asociados a condiciones de salud y al estilo de vida de los individuos, cuyas consecuencias fueron mayores para el grupo de docentes; dado que al ser la voz su principal herramienta de trabajo, el uso fue mayor y asimismo la probabilidad de desencadenar sintomatología vocal, derivada de la fatiga laríngea. La variable de fo promedio para la fonación sostenida de la vocal /a/, que representa una sonido neutro en tonalidad o el tono habitual, mostró diferencias significativas entre grupos (p=0,048). Para este caso, el grupo de docentes registró un aumento de la fo en el postest en comparación con un cambio no significativo para el grupo de administrativos luego del uso prolongado de la voz. En consecuencia, hubo diferencias en el valor registrado para la máxima fo (p =0,025), mínima fo (p=0,011) y el rango de fo (p=0,012) en la emisión sostenida de la vocal /a/. Para el caso del grupo de administrativos, las diferencias significativas estuvieron dadas por la disminución de la fo, rango y máxima y mínima frecuencia en las tres vocales (/a/, /i/, /o/) en contraste con lo ocurrido para el grupo de docentes. En la intensidad de la voz fueron encontradas también diferencias significativas entre grupos (p=0,001) con un decrecimiento del volumen en el postest, tanto promedio como mínimo, máximo y rango de la intensidad, en la fonación sostenida de la vocal /a/ para el grupo de docentes; ninguna significancia estadística fue hallada en el grupo de administrativos para estas variables. Se demostró a través de mediciones objetivas y resultados verificables, el fenómeno de la fatiga laríngea, asociados a los efectos que se presentan tras la demanda vocal continua, discriminando el impacto, entre las variables de cargo y género.

Avanços em reconhecimento de fala para português brasileiro e aplicações: ditado no libreoffice e unidade de resposta audível com asterisk

O reconhecimento automático de voz vem sendo cada vez mais útil e possível. Quando se trata de línguas como a Inglesa, encontram-se no mercado excelentes reconhecedores. Porem, a situação não e a mesma para o Português Brasileiro, onde os principais reconhecedores para ditado em sistemas desktop que já existiram foram descontinuados. A presente dissertação alinha-se com os objetivos do Laboratório de Processamento de Sinais da Universidade Federal do Pará, que é o desenvolvimento de um reconhecedor automático de voz para Português Brasileiro. Mais especificamente, as principais contribuições dessa dissertação são: o desenvolvimento de alguns recursos necessários para a construção de um reconhecedor, tais como: bases de áudio transcrito e API para desenvolvimento de aplicações; e o desenvolvimento de duas aplicações: uma para ditado em sistema desktop e outra para atendimento automático em um call center. O Coruja, sistema desenvolvido no LaPS para reconhecimento de voz em Português Brasileiro. Este alem de conter todos os recursos para fornecer reconhecimento de voz em Português Brasileiro possui uma API para desenvolvimento de aplicativos. O aplicativo desenvolvido para ditado e edição de textos em desktop e o SpeechOO, este possibilita o ditado para a ferramenta Writer do pacote LibreOffice, alem de permitir a edição e formatação de texto com comandos de voz. Outra contribuição deste trabalho e a utilização de reconhecimento automático de voz em call centers, o Coruja foi integrado ao software Asterisk e a principal aplicação desenvolvida foi uma unidade de resposta audível com reconhecimento de voz para o atendimento de um call center nacional que atende mais de 3 mil ligações diárias.

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).

Language identification based on a discriminative text categorization technique

In this paper, we describe new results and improvements to a lan-guage identification (LID) system based on PPRLM previously introduced in [1] and [2]. In this case, we use as parallel phone recognizers the ones provided by the Brno University of Technology for Czech, Hungarian, and Russian lan-guages, and instead of using traditional n-gram language models we use a lan-guage model that is created using a ranking with the most frequent and discrim-inative n-grams. In this language model approach, the distance between the ranking for the input sentence and the ranking for each language is computed, based on the difference in relative positions for each n-gram. This approach is able to model reliably longer span information than in traditional language models obtaining more reliable estimations. We also describe the modifications that we have being introducing along the time to the original ranking technique, e.g., different discriminative formulas to establish the ranking, variations of the template size, the suppression of repeated consecutive phones, and a new clus-tering technique for the ranking scores. Results show that this technique pro-vides a 12.9% relative improvement over PPRLM. Finally, we also describe re-sults where the traditional PPRLM and our ranking technique are combined.