Experiments in Detection and Correction of Russian Malapropisms by Means of the WEB

Malapropism is a semantic error that is hardly detectable because it usually retains syntactical links between words in the sentence but replaces one content word by a similar word with quite different meaning. A method of automatic detection of malapropisms is described, based on Web statistics and a specially defined Semantic Compatibility Index (SCI). For correction of the detected errors, special dictionaries and heuristic rules are proposed, which retains only a few highly SCI-ranked correction candidates for the user’s selection. Experiments on Web-assisted detection and correction of Russian malapropisms are reported, demonstrating efficacy of the described method.

N1 enhancement in synesthesia during visual and audio-visual perception in semantic cross-modal conflict situations: an ERP study

Synesthesia entails a special kind of sensory perception, where stimulation in one sensory modality leads to an internally generated perceptual experience of another, not stimulated sensory modality. This phenomenon can be viewed as an abnormal multisensory integration process as here the synesthetic percept is aberrantly fused with the stimulated modality. Indeed, recent synesthesia research has focused on multimodal processing even outside of the specific synesthesia-inducing context and has revealed changed multimodal integration, thus suggesting perceptual alterations at a global level. Here, we focused on audio-visual processing in synesthesia using a semantic classification task in combination with visually or auditory-visually presented animated and in animated objects in an audio-visual congruent and incongruent manner. Fourteen subjects with auditory-visual and/or grapheme-color synesthesia and 14 control subjects participated in the experiment. During presentation of the stimuli, event-related potentials were recorded from 32 electrodes. The analysis of reaction times and error rates revealed no group differences with best performance for audio-visually congruent stimulation indicating the well-known multimodal facilitation effect. We found enhanced amplitude of the N1 component over occipital electrode sites for synesthetes compared to controls. The differences occurred irrespective of the experimental condition and therefore suggest a global influence on early sensory processing in synesthetes.

Semantic integration of gene expression analysis tools and data sources using software connectors

Abstract Background The study and analysis of gene expression measurements is the primary focus of functional genomics. Once expression data is available, biologists are faced with the task of extracting (new) knowledge associated to the underlying biological phenomenon. Most often, in order to perform this task, biologists execute a number of analysis activities on the available gene expression dataset rather than a single analysis activity. The integration of heteregeneous tools and data sources to create an integrated analysis environment represents a challenging and error-prone task. Semantic integration enables the assignment of unambiguous meanings to data shared among different applications in an integrated environment, allowing the exchange of data in a semantically consistent and meaningful way. This work aims at developing an ontology-based methodology for the semantic integration of gene expression analysis tools and data sources. The proposed methodology relies on software connectors to support not only the access to heterogeneous data sources but also the definition of transformation rules on exchanged data. Results We have studied the different challenges involved in the integration of computer systems and the role software connectors play in this task. We have also studied a number of gene expression technologies, analysis tools and related ontologies in order to devise basic integration scenarios and propose a reference ontology for the gene expression domain. Then, we have defined a number of activities and associated guidelines to prescribe how the development of connectors should be carried out. Finally, we have applied the proposed methodology in the construction of three different integration scenarios involving the use of different tools for the analysis of different types of gene expression data. Conclusions The proposed methodology facilitates the development of connectors capable of semantically integrating different gene expression analysis tools and data sources. The methodology can be used in the development of connectors supporting both simple and nontrivial processing requirements, thus assuring accurate data exchange and information interpretation from exchanged data.

Infrastructure and Workflow for the Formal Evaluation of Semantic Search Technologies

This paper describes an infrastructure for the automated evaluation of semantic technologies and, in particular, semantic search technologies. For this purpose, we present an evaluation framework which follows a service-oriented approach for evaluating semantic technologies and uses the Business Process Execution Language (BPEL) to define evaluation workflows that can be executed by process engines. This framework supports a variety of evaluations, from different semantic areas, including search, and is extendible to new evaluations. We show how BPEL addresses this diversity as well as how it is used to solve specific challenges such as heterogeneity, error handling and reuse

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).

Applying semantic knowledge to the automatic processing of temporal expressions and events in natural language

This paper addresses the problem of the automatic recognition and classification of temporal expressions and events in human language. Efficacy in these tasks is crucial if the broader task of temporal information processing is to be successfully performed. We analyze whether the application of semantic knowledge to these tasks improves the performance of current approaches. We therefore present and evaluate a data-driven approach as part of a system: TIPSem. Our approach uses lexical semantics and semantic roles as additional information to extend classical approaches which are principally based on morphosyntax. The results obtained for English show that semantic knowledge aids in temporal expression and event recognition, achieving an error reduction of 59% and 21%, while in classification the contribution is limited. From the analysis of the results it may be concluded that the application of semantic knowledge leads to more general models and aids in the recognition of temporal entities that are ambiguous at shallower language analysis levels. We also discovered that lexical semantics and semantic roles have complementary advantages, and that it is useful to combine them. Finally, we carried out the same analysis for Spanish. The results obtained show comparable advantages. This supports the hypothesis that applying the proposed semantic knowledge may be useful for different languages.

Discriminative training of the hidden vector state model for semantic parsing

In this paper, we discuss how discriminative training can be applied to the hidden vector state (HVS) model in different task domains. The HVS model is a discrete hidden Markov model (HMM) in which each HMM state represents the state of a push-down automaton with a finite stack size. In previous applications, maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) is used to derive the parameters of the HVS model. However, MLE makes a number of assumptions and unfortunately some of these assumptions do not hold. Discriminative training, without making such assumptions, can improve the performance of the HVS model by discriminating the correct hypothesis from the competing hypotheses. Experiments have been conducted in two domains: the travel domain for the semantic parsing task using the DARPA Communicator data and the Air Travel Information Services (ATIS) data and the bioinformatics domain for the information extraction task using the GENIA corpus. The results demonstrate modest improvements of the performance of the HVS model using discriminative training. In the travel domain, discriminative training of the HVS model gives a relative error reduction rate of 31 percent in F-measure when compared with MLE on the DARPA Communicator data and 9 percent on the ATIS data. In the bioinformatics domain, a relative error reduction rate of 4 percent in F-measure is achieved on the GENIA corpus.

Describing and communicating uncertainty within the semantic web

The Semantic Web relies on carefully structured, well defined, data to allow machines to communicate and understand one another. In many domains (e.g. geospatial) the data being described contains some uncertainty, often due to incomplete knowledge; meaningful processing of this data requires these uncertainties to be carefully analysed and integrated into the process chain. Currently, within the SemanticWeb there is no standard mechanism for interoperable description and exchange of uncertain information, which renders the automated processing of such information implausible, particularly where error must be considered and captured as it propagates through a processing sequence. In particular we adopt a Bayesian perspective and focus on the case where the inputs / outputs are naturally treated as random variables. This paper discusses a solution to the problem in the form of the Uncertainty Markup Language (UncertML). UncertML is a conceptual model, realised as an XML schema, that allows uncertainty to be quantified in a variety of ways i.e. realisations, statistics and probability distributions. UncertML is based upon a soft-typed XML schema design that provides a generic framework from which any statistic or distribution may be created. Making extensive use of Geography Markup Language (GML) dictionaries, UncertML provides a collection of definitions for common uncertainty types. Containing both written descriptions and mathematical functions, encoded as MathML, the definitions within these dictionaries provide a robust mechanism for defining any statistic or distribution and can be easily extended. Universal Resource Identifiers (URIs) are used to introduce semantics to the soft-typed elements by linking to these dictionary definitions. The INTAMAP (INTeroperability and Automated MAPping) project provides a use case for UncertML. This paper demonstrates how observation errors can be quantified using UncertML and wrapped within an Observations & Measurements (O&M) Observation. The interpolation service uses the information within these observations to influence the prediction outcome. The output uncertainties may be encoded in a variety of UncertML types, e.g. a series of marginal Gaussian distributions, a set of statistics, such as the first three marginal moments, or a set of realisations from a Monte Carlo treatment. Quantifying and propagating uncertainty in this way allows such interpolation results to be consumed by other services. This could form part of a risk management chain or a decision support system, and ultimately paves the way for complex data processing chains in the Semantic Web.

Paronyms for Accelerated Correction of Semantic Errors

* Work done under partial support of Mexican Government (CONACyT, SNI), IPN (CGPI, COFAA) and Korean Government (KIPA Professorship for Visiting Faculty Positions). The second author is currently on Sabbatical leave at Chung-Ang University.

Refractive Error In School Children In Campinas, Brazil.

77

The Use of Latent Semantic Indexing to Mitigate OCR Effects of Related Document Images

Due to both the widespread and multipurpose use of document images and the current availability of a high number of document images repositories, robust information retrieval mechanisms and systems have been increasingly demanded. This paper presents an approach to support the automatic generation of relationships among document images by exploiting Latent Semantic Indexing (LSI) and Optical Character Recognition (OCR). We developed the LinkDI (Linking of Document Images) service, which extracts and indexes document images content, computes its latent semantics, and defines relationships among images as hyperlinks. LinkDI was experimented with document images repositories, and its performance was evaluated by comparing the quality of the relationships created among textual documents as well as among their respective document images. Considering those same document images, we ran further experiments in order to compare the performance of LinkDI when it exploits or not the LSI technique. Experimental results showed that LSI can mitigate the effects of usual OCR misrecognition, which reinforces the feasibility of LinkDI relating OCR output with high degradation.

An empirical evaluation of imputation accuracy for association statistics reveals increased type-I error rates in genome-wide associations

Background: Genome wide association studies (GWAS) are becoming the approach of choice to identify genetic determinants of complex phenotypes and common diseases. The astonishing amount of generated data and the use of distinct genotyping platforms with variable genomic coverage are still analytical challenges. Imputation algorithms combine directly genotyped markers information with haplotypic structure for the population of interest for the inference of a badly genotyped or missing marker and are considered a near zero cost approach to allow the comparison and combination of data generated in different studies. Several reports stated that imputed markers have an overall acceptable accuracy but no published report has performed a pair wise comparison of imputed and empiric association statistics of a complete set of GWAS markers. Results: In this report we identified a total of 73 imputed markers that yielded a nominally statistically significant association at P < 10(-5) for type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and compared them with results obtained based on empirical allelic frequencies. Interestingly, despite their overall high correlation, association statistics based on imputed frequencies were discordant in 35 of the 73 (47%) associated markers, considerably inflating the type I error rate of imputed markers. We comprehensively tested several quality thresholds, the haplotypic structure underlying imputed markers and the use of flanking markers as predictors of inaccurate association statistics derived from imputed markers. Conclusions: Our results suggest that association statistics from imputed markers showing specific MAF (Minor Allele Frequencies) range, located in weak linkage disequilibrium blocks or strongly deviating from local patterns of association are prone to have inflated false positive association signals. The present study highlights the potential of imputation procedures and proposes simple procedures for selecting the best imputed markers for follow-up genotyping studies.

Innovation concept for measurement gross error detection and identification in power system state estimation

In this study, the innovation approach is used to estimate the measurement total error associated with power system state estimation. This is required because the power system equations are very much correlated with each other and as a consequence part of the measurements errors is masked. For that purpose an index, innovation index (II), which provides the quantity of new information a measurement contains is proposed. A critical measurement is the limit case of a measurement with low II, it has a zero II index and its error is totally masked. In other words, that measurement does not bring any innovation for the gross error test. Using the II of a measurement, the masked gross error by the state estimation is recovered; then the total gross error of that measurement is composed. Instead of the classical normalised measurement residual amplitude, the corresponding normalised composed measurement residual amplitude is used in the gross error detection and identification test, but with m degrees of freedom. The gross error processing turns out to be very simple to implement, requiring only few adaptations to the existing state estimation software. The IEEE-14 bus system is used to validate the proposed gross error detection and identification test.

Thermal error evaluation and modelling of a CNC cylindrical grinding machine

With the relentless quest for improved performance driving ever tighter tolerances for manufacturing, machine tools are sometimes unable to meet the desired requirements. One option to improve the tolerances of machine tools is to compensate for their errors. Among all possible sources of machine tool error, thermally induced errors are, in general for newer machines, the most important. The present work demonstrates the evaluation and modelling of the behaviour of the thermal errors of a CNC cylindrical grinding machine during its warm-up period.

One-time signature scheme from syndrome decoding over generic error-correcting codes

We describe a one-time signature scheme based on the hardness of the syndrome decoding problem, and prove it secure in the random oracle model. Our proposal can be instantiated on general linear error correcting codes, rather than restricted families like alternant codes for which a decoding trapdoor is known to exist. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved,