Global Index Languages

A Dissertation

Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Brandeis University Department of Computer Science James Pustejovsky, Advisor

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy

by Jos´ M. Casta˜o e n February, 2004

The signed version of this dissertation page is on file at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Brandeis University. This dissertation, directed and approved by Jos´ M. Casta˜o’s committee, has been accepted and e n approved by the Graduate Faculty of Brandeis University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of:

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Adam Jaffe, Dean of Arts and Sciences

Dissertation Committee: James Pustejovsky, Dept. of Computer Science, Chair. Martin Cohn, Dept. of Computer Science Timothy J. Hickey, Dept. of Computer Science Aravind K. Joshi, University of Pennsylvania

.

c Copyright by Jos´ M. Casta˜o e n 2004 .

.

Rodr´ ıguez. Debes amar la arcilla que va en tus manos debes amar su arena hasta la locura y si no.Al Campris y su eterna perserverancia. A la Pipi y su gran amor. vii . que ser´ en vano a S. no lo emprendas.

.

Ricardo e Rodr´ ıguez. It is my belief that every intellectual work is fruit of a community. Marc Verhagen. ı I cannot express how grateful I am to my compa˜era Daniela in this and every route. Pablo Funes. I would like to express my gratitude to James Pustejovsky who supported and encouraged me during these years. Piroska Cs´ri. Aldo Blanco. Jos´ Alvarez. Edward Stabler and Stuart Shieber helped me to find a way at the initial stages of this endeavour. Roser Saur´ and Bob Knippen. Ana Arregui. I am extremely grateful to Aravind Joshi for being part of my committee and for his precise comments and suggestions. far away from my initial interests when I arrived at Brandeis. First and foremost. Domingo Medina. This work was influenced by many people. Anna ıa n u Rumshisky.Acknowledgments Many people contributed to this work. some I don’t know. Mar´ Pi˜ango. Francesco Rizzo. in many different ways. ix . my American friend. Also many circumstances led me to this unexpected path. My sincere thanks to Tim Hickey and Ray Jackendoff. Alejandro Renato and the extraordinary friends I met at Brandeis. Many thanks to my Argentinian friends and colleagues. My family n has a very special dedication. My highest appreciation to those anonymous reviewers who made an effort to understand and comment on my submissions during these years. I would like to thank Martin Cohn for introducing me to Formal Languages and having always time for me.

.

Waltham. Then characterization and representation theorems as well as closure properties are also presented. An Earley type algorithm to solve the recognition problem is discussed in Chapter 5. named Global Index Languages (GILs). This family of languages preserves the desirable properties mentioned above: bounded polynomial parsability. However there are many problems that cannot be described by context-free languages: “the world is not context-free” [25]. it might be necessary to deal with the multiple copies language: {ww+ |w ∈ Σ∗ } [29]. and at the same time has an “extra” context-sensitive descriptive power (e. There is increasing consensus that modeling certain natural language problems would require more descriptive power than that allowed by context-free languages. we discuss in Chapter 6 the relevance of Global Index Languages for natural language phenomena. as well as the structural descriptions generated by the corresponding grammars. This thesis presents an abstract family of languages. We present a two-stack automaton model for GILs and a grammar model (Global Index Grammars) in Chapter 2 and 3. In order to model coordination.ABSTRACT Global Index Languages A dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Brandeis University. One of those problems concerns natural language phenomena. semi-linearity. One of the hard problems in natural language is coordination. This work takes these ideas as its goal. polynomial parsability and semi-linearity. Finally.g the “multiple-copies” language is a GI language). GIls descriptive power is shown both in terms of the set of string languages included in GILs. Casta˜o e n Context-free grammars (CFGs) is perhaps the best understood and most applicable part of formal language theory. xi . Innumerable formalisms have been proposed to extend the power of context-free grammars. At the same time there is a special concern to preserve the ‘nice’ properties of context-free languages: for instance. Mildly context-sensitive languages and grammars emerged as a paradigm capable of modeling the requirements of natural languages. as well as an LR-parsing algorithm for the deterministic version of GILs. Massachusetts by Jos´ M.

.

. . . . . . .2 Global Index Grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . .1 GILs. . . . . . .4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . .4 Examples of LR-2PDAs . . . . . 3. . .1. . . . . .1 Automata with two Stacks . . .3 Semilinearity of GILs and the Constant Growth property 4. . . . . . .3 GILs and Dyck Languages . PDA and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Comparison with TM. . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Indexed Grammars and Linear Indexed Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 GIGs examples . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . finite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs . 3. 2. . . . Results . 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. .2 Biology and the Language of DNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 trGIGS . . . . . . . .1. . . . .2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata .2 Outline of the Thesis and Description of the . . . . . . .5 Determinism in LR-2PDA . .3 Our proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . .4. . . . .2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Relations to other families of languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . 4. . . . . . . .2. . . .1. . . .2 Left Restricted 2 Stack Push Down Automatas (LR-2PDAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Natural Language . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . .1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines . . . . . . . . . 3 Global Index Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . ix xi xv 1 1 2 4 5 6 9 9 10 12 13 15 17 20 20 21 23 23 24 26 28 32 35 41 41 42 44 46 47 2 Two Stack Push Down Automata 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . .2 Closure Properties of GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Contents vii Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures 1 Introduction 1.5. . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . .1 Deterministic LR-2PDA .

. . . . . . . . . 5. . . . .2. . . . . . . 6. . .1 Future Work . . . . . . .3 The Copy Language . . . . . . 107 107 108 108 110 112 113 115 116 119 6 Applicability of GIGs 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . 6. . . . . .1 Overview . . .6. . . . . . . .2 Set Inclusion between GIGs and LIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 LIGs in push-Greibach Normal Form . . 6. .1 Graph-structured Stacks . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . .3 GIGs and HPSGs . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . 6. . 6. . . . 79 . 75 . . .1 Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Global Index Grammars (GIGs) 6. . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . 48 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. . GILs. . . . . . . .3. . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 xiv . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . .2 The Closure Operation. . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . .1 Control Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . .3 Parsing Schemata for GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . .1 LR items and viable prefixes . . . . . 57 .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Multiple dependencies . . 96 . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . 83 . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Crossing dependencies . . . .1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs . . . . . . .2 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . 5.2 Parsing Schemata . . . . . . 52 . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Proof of the Correctness of the Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 .1.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The palindrome language . . . . . . . 5. . 7 Conclusions and Future Work 125 7. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Complexity Analysis . . . . . . .3 The Goto Operation. . . .2 Time and Space Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for 5. .6 LR parsing for GILs . . . . . . . . 52 . . . . . 51 . . . 98 . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Refining the Earley Algorithm for GIGs . . . . .5 Derivation order and Normal Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Implementation . . . . .4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: final version . . . 53 . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . .1 Earley Algorithm. . . . . . . . 5. . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 . 5. 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .

. . . . . . .1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 GIG invariant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . A non context-free structural description for the language wwR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Earley CFG invariant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 5.1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Push and Pop moves on the same spine . . . . . . . .18 5.21 5.5 Language relations . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . last case . . . . . .12 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Two alternative graph-structured stacks distinguished by position . . . 68 Completer C . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5. . . . 59 A complete steps in the graph . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 5. . .7 5. . . . . . . 63 i I-edges . . . . . . . . . . . .8 5. . . . . . . . Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR . . .13 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Completer D . . . . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 A predict time graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 5. . . . . . . . . 81 Path invariant . . . .5 2. . 88 Set of States for Gwcw . . . . . . . . LR-2PDA . . 102 LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Completer G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) A Turing Machine . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . 100 Transition diagram for the PDA recognizing the set of valid prefixes. . . . . . . . . sLR-2PDA . . 108 109 109 110 110 xv . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Completer E. . . . . .4 2. . . .6 5. . . . . . A PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 5. . . . . . . 59 Two alternative graph-structured stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Ambiguity on different spines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 i A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 15 15 17 17 18 Two graph-structured stacks . . . . . . . . . . .4 6. . . . . . . . . . . .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. 68 Completer B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Completer A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5. . . . . . 71 Completer F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5. . . . . . . . . . . annotated with indices for the grammar Gwcw .20 5. . . . 58 i Push and Pop moves on different spines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 6. . . . . . . .19 5.

. . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Comp in GIG format . .17 6. . . . . . SLASH and coordination in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . second case . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . Head-Comps Schema tree representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLASH in GIG format . . . . . . . . .6 6. . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II . . . A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language .12 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject Schema . . . .20 6. . . . . . . .16 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .7 6. . . . . . . . .11 6. . .19 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6. . . . . . .10 6. .15 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . .9 6. .21 6. . . . . . . .13 6. . . . . . . . . . .18 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF I . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 111 112 112 113 113 117 117 118 118 119 120 121 121 122 123 124 xvi . . . . . . . . .22 An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Such a model is relevant. 1 . However there are many problems that cannot be described by context-free languages. closure properties). [7. semilinearity property. Many formalisms have been proposed to extend the power of context-free grammars using control devices. where the control device is a context-free grammar (see [87] and [26] regarding control languages). • Computational Biology • Possibly also relevant to programming languages which might use context sensitive features (like Algol 60). The purpose of this thesis is to explore an alternative formalism with restricted context-sensitivity and computational tractability. The appeal of this approach is that many of the attractive properties of context-free languages are preserved (e. polynomial parsability. at least.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. 81.1 Introduction Context-free grammars (CFGs) constitute perhaps the most developed. for the following areas: • Natural Language modeling and processing. We try to obtain a model with efficient computation properties. In [25] seven situations which cannot be described with a context-free framework are given. 59]).g. well understood and most widely applicable part of formal language theory. In an automaton model those extensions either use constrained embedded or additional stacks (cf.

29]. These constructions are exemplified as [26]:2 – reduplication. among others. leading to languages of the form {ww |w ∈ Σ∗ } – multiple agreements. additional levels of embeddedness. where a language of level k properly includes a language of level k − 1. 47] on semi-linearity. and multi-push-down grammars [21]. Examples of those related hierarchies are: Khabbaz’s [49]. INTRODUCTION Such models can be generalized and additional control levels. – crossed agreements.1 Natural Language Regarding natural languages (one of the seven cases mentioned above). there is increasing consensus1 on the necessity of formalisms more powerful than CFGs to account certain typical natural languages constructions. In general. that can be modeled with GILs. for a level k language the complexity of the recognition problem is a polynomial where the degree of the polynomial is a function of k. {an bn cn dn | n ≥ 1}. Within Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms we focus on Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) which are weakly equivalent. The complexity of the recognition problem is dependent on the language level. We will focus in natural language problems from a language theoretic point of view. in particular related to the so called Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms. or additional stacks can be added. Georgian Case and Chinese numbers) might be considered 3 However to be beyond certain mildly context-sensitive formalisms. corresponding to languages of the form {an bn cn | n ≥ 1}. 4 See for example.1. We will exemplify this issue with some properties of natural language and we will consider some biology phenomena. 23. . They form hierarchies of levels of languages. multiple context free grammars [71]. As a consequence those generalizations provide more expressive power but at a computational cost. [46. Weir’s [87].g.3 It has been claimed that a NL model must have the following properties:4 1 See 2 The for example [73. 86] and [55. scrambling. etc.2 CHAPTER 1. 1. following type of languages are also relevant to model molecular biology phenomena [70] there are other phenomena (e. as modeled by {an bm cn dm | n m ≥ 1} Mildly context-sensitive grammars [43] have been proposed as capable of modeling the above mentioned phenomena.

Many different proposals for extending the power of LIGs/TAGs have been presented in the recent past. Their expressive power regarding multiple agreements is limited to 4 counting dependencies (e. and the time and space complexity of the recognition problem.. They have been proven to have recognition algorithms with time complexity O(n6 ) considering the size of the grammar a constant factor ( [67. a stronger version of this requirement ) – Polynomial parsability – Limited cross-serial dependencies – Proper inclusion of context-free languages 3 The most restricted mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms are linear indexed Grammars (LIGs)..g. and combinatory categorial grammars (CCGs) which are weakly equivalent. However. One of the characteristics of mildly context sensitive formalisms is that they can be described by a geometric hierarchy of language classes.a2 k | n ≥ 0} and {w2 k −1 |w ∈ Σ∗ } but does not contain the languages n n {a1 . A TAG/LIG is a level-2 control grammar.1. Therefore the following relations follow: The family of level-k languages contains the languages n n {a1 . its descriptive power. and in the machine model allowing another level of embeddedness in the stack. where a CFG controls another CFG.. A lemma for level k of the hierarchy involves “pumping” 2k positions in the string. 62]).. The equivalent machine model is a nested or embedded push down automata (NPDA or EPDA). In such hierarchies there is a correlation between the complexity of the formalism (grammar or automata). tree adjoining grammars (TAGs). More expressive power can be gained in a mildly context-sensitive model by increasing the progression of this mechanism: in the grammar model adding another level of grammar control. head grammars (HGs).1. Tree Adjoining languages belong to the class L2 in Weir’s hierarchy. INTRODUCTION – Constant growth property (or semi-linearity. L = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1}).. These formalisms have long been used to account for natural language phenomena. This is reflected in the pumping lemma.a2 k +1 | n ≥ 0} and {w2 k −1 +1 |w ∈ Σ∗ } . an increase in descriptive power is correlated with an increase in time and space parsing complexity.

Direct Repeats (the copy language). Contextual Languages do not properly include context-free languages. and m the number of terms in the productions. He shows that the language of nucleic acids is not regular. mutation and rearrangements. 54]. Some of those formalisms are: Minimalist grammars [78. but their complexity and expressive power is bound to some parameter in the grammar (in other words the expressive power is bound to a parameter of the grammar itself). 10. generative grammars have been proposed as models of biological phenomena and the connections between linguistics and biology have been exploited in different ways (see [40. However. gene structure and expression. Multivalued Linear Indexed Grammars [63]. Searls [70. that it is ambiguous and that it is not context-free. For LMGs the complexity of the recognition problem is O(|G|m(+p)n1 +m+2p ) where p is the arity of the predicates. 12]. In Coupled Context-Free Grammars the recognition problem is in O(|P | · n3l ) where l is the rank of the grammar [28] and Multiple Context Free Grammars is O(ne ) where e is the degree of the grammar. In this case the complexity of the recognition problem is a bound polynomial: O(n6 ) space and O(n9 ) time [36]. recombination.4 CHAPTER 1. 87]. Those problems which are beyond context free are: Tandem Repeats (multiple copies).1. 38. 66] is another formalism with some mildly context sensitive characteristics. 68] proposes a grammar model to capture the language of DNA. and the related Literal Movement Grammars (LMGs). Tree Description Grammars [47] are other such examples. 1. There are other formalisms related to mildly context-sensitive languages that are not characterized by a hierarchy of grammar levels. Pseudoknots (crossing dependencies) represented as: Lk = {uv¯R v R }. or ordering) the recognition problem is in O(n3 ·2 k −1 ) [86.2 Biology and the Language of DNA Recently. Gene regulation. Range Concatenative Grammars [34. nor deterministic nor linear. conformation of macromolecules and the computational analysis of sequence data are problems which have been approached from such a perspective. u ¯ . INTRODUCTION An increase in the language level increases the time (and space) complexity but it still is in P : for a level-k control grammar (or a level-k of stack embeddedness. Contextual Grammars [52. 69]).

or interleaved repeats. k ≥ 2} any number of agreements or dependencies. which we call Global Index Languages. We will also show that it is able to describe phenomena relevant both to natural language and biology. dependent branches There are many similarities between Linear Indexed Grammars and Global Index Grammars. String Variable Languages are a subset of Indexed Languages. • L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}. and proposed a formal grammar [65] corresponding to the language that can be parsed using such an algorithm. However there is no known algorithm that decides the recognition problem for String Variable Languages. b. b}∗ } unbounded number of copies or repeats (which allows also an unbounded number of crossing dependencies). however there are many GI languages which do not belong to the set of Linear Indexed Languages .. We will show that the automaton and grammar model proposed here extends in a natural way the properties of Push Down Automata and context-free languages. inverted repeats. which is in time O(n6 ). He proposed String Variable Grammars to model the language of DNA. 1.. (GILs). which is conjectured not to be an Indexed Language. combinations.3 Our proposal Unlike mildly context-sensitive grammars and related formalisms.1.ak n | n ≥ 1. The following languages can be generated by a Global Index Grammar: • Lm = {a1 n a2 n . and they are able to describe those phenomena. are characteristic of the language of DNA. Probably the work by Searls is the most salient in this field. INTRODUCTION 5 Unbounded number of repeats.1. Recently Rivas and Eddy [64] proposed an algorithm which is O(n6 ) to predict RNA structure including pseudoknots. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 1} The mix language. • L(Ggenabc ) = {an (bn cn )+ | n ≥ 1} unbounded number of agreements.1. • L(Gmix ) = {w|w ∈ {a. there is no correlation between the descriptive power (regarding the three phenomena we mentioned) and the time complexity of the recognition problem. • L(Gwwn ) = {ww+ |w ∈ {a. in the model we present here.

44]. although no further implications are pursued. parsing and modeling of natural language phenomena. The recognition problem for Global Index Languages (GILs) has a bounded polynomial complexity. INTRODUCTION (LILs). In addition. u In Chapter 4 we discuss some of the closure properties of Global Index Languages and their relationship with other languages. which we call LR-2PDAs in Chapter 2 (a significant part of this chapter was published in [18]). The initial presentation of Global Index Languages was published in [17]. 1. This suggests that Linear Indexed Languages might be properly included in the family of Global Index Languages. and there is no correlation between the recognition problem complexity and the expressive power. We detail the properties of GILs in the following section. However GIGs can generate structural descriptions where the dependencies are expressed in dependent paths of the tree. We present the corresponding grammar model : Global Index Grammars (GIGs). GILs are also semi-linear. and the family of Global Index Languages (GILs) in Chapter 3. a proof of equivalence between the grammar model and the automaton model (the characterization Theorem) and a Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger representation Theorem are presented in Chapter 3. given they contain the MIX (or Bach) language [11]. is also presented in Chapter 3. A subset of GIGs (trGIGs). The set of Global Index Languages is an Abstract Family of Languages. We also discuss the structural descriptions generated by GIGs along the lines of Gazdar [29] and Joshi [82. In this work we will address three aspects of the problem: language theoretic issues. We show in Chapter 6 that the relevant structural descriptions that can be generated by LIGs/TAGs can also be generated by a GIG. The fourth property. Therefore GILs have at least three of the four properties required for mild context sensitivity: a) semi-linearity b) polynomial parsability and c) proper inclusion of context free languages.6 CHAPTER 1. GILs include multiple copies languages and languages with any finite number of dependencies as well as the MIX language.2 Outline of the Thesis and Description of the Results Language Theoretic Aspects (Chapters 2-4) We define the corresponding Automaton model. limited cross-serial dependencies does not hold for GILs. An abstract family of languages (AFL) is a family of languages closed under the following . a property which can be proved following the proof presented in [37] for counter automata.

The graph-structured stack enables the computations of a Dyck language over the set of indices and their complements. OUTLINE OF THE THESIS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RESULTS 7 six operations: union. for higher level programming languages or deterministic approaches for shallow parsing in natural language. We also show that GILs are closed under substitution by e-free CFLs. We evaluated the impact of the size of the grammar and the indexing mechanism separately. Natural Language Modeling (Chapter 6) We present a comparison of LIGs and GIGs (some of these results were presented in [20]). The construction of the Goto function shows an interesting (though not surprising) fact about GILs: the Goto function defines a PDA that recognizes the set of viable prefixes. O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ). This is due to the fact that GILs inherit most of CFL properties.1. intersection with regular languages. but the indexing mechanism could have a higher impact. The time complexity of the algorithm is O(n6 ). Combinatory Categorial Grammars. shows that the size of the grammar has the same impact as in the CFG case. We also prove that GILs are semi-linear.2. Kleene star. e-free homomorphism. They are also the basis for non-deterministic approaches. concatenation and Kleene star. The result. catenation. such as a non-deterministic Generalized LR parsing. LIGs. for example. We show by construction using GIGs that GILs are closed under union. Deterministic LR parsing techniques are relevant. Tree Adjoining Grammars and Head Grammars are weakly . The space complexity is O(n4 ). e-free regular sets. Most of the properties of GILs shown in these chapters are proved using straightforward extensions of CFL proofs. We also give an LR parsing algorithm for for deterministic GILs. We also show that GILs are closed under intersection with regular languages and inverse homomorphism (proved by construction with LR-2PDAs). Parsing (Chapter 5) We present a recognition algorithm that extends Earley’s algorithm for CFGs using a graphstructured stack [80] to compute the operations corresponding to the index operations in a GIG. However it is O(n) for LR or state bound grammars and is O(n3 ) for constant indexing grammars which include a large set of ambiguous indexing grammars. free morphisms and inverse morphisms.

we disscuss how some properties of HPSGs can be modeled with GIGs (presented in [19]. Other formalisms that might share structural similarities with GIGs could be Minimalist Grammars and Categorial Grammars.2. LCFRLs LILs CFLs ww anbncn ww + an(bncn ) + GILs Figure 1.8 CHAPTER 1. so the descriptive power of CFGs regarding by natural language phenomena is inherited by GIGs. The set inclusion relation between CFLs. Our conjecture is that it is. and GILs can be represented as in figure 1.1: Language relations . Those natural language phenomena that require an extra power beyond CFLs can be dealt with GILs with much more flexibility than with LILs/TALs. We also show that GIGs can generate trees with dependent paths. The question still to be answered is whether the area with lines in the LILs and LCFR languages set is empty or not. We discuss the relationship of LIGs with GILs in depth in section 6. LILs/TALs. GILs include CFLs by definition. There is a long and fruitful tradition that has used those formalisms for Natural Language modeling and processing.1. Finally. INTRODUCTION equivalent.

9 .[7.Chapter 2 Two Stack Push Down Automata 2. 81. [41]). 59] [21.g. Those models restrict the operation of additional stacks (be embedded or ordered) allowing to read or pop the top of an additional stack only if the preceding stacks are empty. The simulation of a TM by a 2-PDA is enabled by the possibility of representing the head position and the tape to the left side of the head in a TM with one stack and the tape to the right side with the second stack.. 9]. in the sense that it is forced to consume the input from left to right and has a limited capacity to go back from right to left. 85]. and n-Stack PDA.. 84]). Consequently it is possible to simulate the capacity that a TM 1 See [7. Restricted classes of PDA with two stacks (2-PDA) were proposed as equivalent to a second order EPDA1 . 2 E. 83. but behaves like a PDA. or multi-store PDAs as equivalent to n-order EPDA. 84..g. We need to guarantee that the proposed automaton model does not have the power of a Turing Machine.g. 21.2 It is well known that an unrestricted 2-PDA is equivalent to a Turing Machine (cf. The model of 2-PDA that we want to explore here is a model which preserves the main characteristics of a PDA but has a restricted additional storage capacity: allows accessing some limited left context information.1 Automata with two Stacks Different models of 2-Stack Push Down Automata have been proposed. also generalized models of multistacks (e. (e.[31.

In 2. TAGs). stn are stacks introduced above the current stack.1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines An EPDA. We adopt the following restrictions to the transitions performed by the kind of 2-PDA we propose here: the Main stack behaves like an ordinary PDA stack (allows the same type of transitions that a PDA allows). current state. Consequently this would produce a more restricted set of languages. the input must be consumed and it must be possible to transfer symbols from one stack to the other.st1 . st2 . push/pop on current stack.. In order to simulate these movements in a 2-PDA. A more detailed comparison of TMs. [83. either reading or replacing symbols. sbm are a finite number of stacks introduced below the current stack... stack symbol)= (new state.. is similar to a PDA. Then a transition function looks like (from [45]): δ (input symbol. . stn ) where sb1 . . st2 . M’. and the LR-2-PDA is presented in section 2. .10 CHAPTER 2..g..1. sb1 .. Alternatively..3. Given that it is not possible to re-store them again in the auxiliary stack. the input might be initially stored in the second stack (e. . they cannot be recovered (unless some more input is consumed). 2. Its expressive power is beyond PDA (context free grammars) and possibly beyond EPDA (e. it is not possible to write into the auxiliary stack. . sb2 . It is initiated as a PDA but may create new stacks above and below the current stack. “erases” the symbols as they are removed from the stack. sb2 . The number of stacks is specified in each move.3 These constraints force a left to right operation mode on the input in the LR-2PDA. 3 We might restrict even more the operation of the auxiliary stack disallowing moves that pop symbols from the auxiliary Stack. 13])... PDAs. sbm . However transitions that push a symbol into the second auxiliary stack do not allow moves. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA has to move from left to right and from right to left... because once the input is consumed. and st1 .3 we define the LR-2PDA. Consequently it is possible to “use” the information stored in the auxiliary stack only once. Moving back to the left. a 2nd order PDA in the progression hierarchy presented in [86]. In the next two subsections we review some models that proposed 2-stack or nested stack automata...g. except that the push-down store may be a sequence of stacks.

81. They also require the use of a symbol for the bottom of the stack. for instance. to recognize crossed dependencies as in the example depicted in the next figure: Figure 2. Symbols written in the second stack can be accessed only after the preceding stack is empty. 59]. The possible moves for a 2-SA automaton are the following [7]: • Read a symbol from the input tape .1.1: Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) 2 Stack automata (2-SA) were shown to be equivalent to EPDA [7. so as to separate different sub-stacks. It allows the NPDA.2. AUTOMATA WITH TWO STACKS 11 The possibility of swapping symbols from the top stack to embedded stacks produces the context sensitive power of L2 languages in Weir’s hierarchy. they use the additional stack in the same way as the embedded stacks are used in the EPDA.

or pop a symbol from. where • Q is the finite set of states. Wartena [85] shows the equivalence of the concatenation of one-turn multi-pushdown automata restricted with respect to reading (as in the 2-SA case). ⊥.1. The shrinking-TPDA. 2. In [16] Buntrock and Otto’s Growing Context Sensitive Languages (GCSLs) are characterized by means of the Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata (sTPDA). But this restriction is not related to conditions on the the main stack but to conditions on the input. 53. F ). Growing Context Sensitive Languages (defined by a syntactic restriction on context sensitive grammars) and the corresponding model of two pushdown automata (see [24. Σ. but {an bn cn |n ≥ 1} is a GCSL. and the alternative restriction with respect to writing. The kind of automata we present implements a restriction on the writing conditions on the additional stack. • remove bottom of the stack symbols. n . b}∗ } belongs to CSL \ GCSLs. 58]. The TPDA initializes the input in one of the stacks. 16. The recognition problem for growing context sensitive grammars is NP-complete ( [14]). GCSLs contain the non-context-free and non-semi-linear {a2 |n ≥ 0} [16] The copy language is not a GCSL {ww|w ∈ {a. GCSLs are a proper subclass of CSLs: The Gladkij language {w#wR #w | w ∈ {a. b}∗ }. q 0 . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA • push a string onto.12 CHAPTER 2. is defined as follows: Definition 1 a) A TPDA is a 7-tuple M = (Q. Γ. • pop a symbol from the auxiliary stack provided the main stack contains the bottom of the stack symbol • create a new set of empty stacks (add a string of bottom of the stack symbols). The reading/writing restriction is related to the requirement that the preceding stacks be empty. the main stack • push a string onto the auxiliary stack. δ. 15.2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata Recently there has been interest on Church-Rosser Languages.

The current state. if it is not ).e. u. We use a standard notation similar to the one used in [77] or [41]. The definition of the transition function δ ensures that transitions with epsilon moves are allowed only if they do not push a symbol into the auxiliary stack. Part c) is a relaxation of the previous one and enables . v) ∈ (δ. b) then φ(puv) < φ(qab).e. the next symbol read and the top symbols of the stacks determine the next move of a LR-2PDA.2 Left Restricted 2 Stack Push Down Automatas (LR2PDAs) We define here the model of automaton that we described and proposed at the beginning of this section. • Γ is the finite tape alphabet with Γ • q 0 ∈ Q is the initial state. and • d : Q × Γ × Γ → P(Q × Γ∗ × Γ∗ ) Σ and Γ ∩ Q = ∅ 13 It can be seen that this kind of automaton needs some restriction. • F ⊆ Q is the set of final (or accepting) states. otherwise it is equivalent to a TM. only if they are equivalent to a PDA transition function. The restriction is implemented using a weight function over the automaton configuration. We can consider the automaton model we present in the next section as preserving a shrinking property that conditions the use of the additional stack: it has to consume input. a. Part b) enables transitions that affect the auxiliary stack if and only if an input symbol is consumed (i. • ⊥ ∈ Γ \ Σ is the bottom marker of pushdown store. b) A TPDA is M is called shrinking if there exists a weight function φ : Q ∪ Γ → N+ such that for all q ∈ Q and a. i.2. b ∈ Γ if (p. 2.. and the requirement that every move must be weight reducing [57].2. Part a) in the definition of the transition function is equivalent to a PDA. causing the machine to move without reading a symbol from the input or from the stacks. LEFT RESTRICTED 2 STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATAS (LR-2PDAS) • Σ is the finite input alphabet. Either of these symbols may be .

⊥ ∈ Γ \ Σ is the bottom marker of the stacks 7. 3. Q × (Σ ∪ { }) × Γ × { } → P F (Q × Γ∗ × { }) and b. The auxiliary stack should be emptied only consuming input. ⊥. δ. Q × (Σ ∪ { }) × Γ × Γ → P F (Q × Γ∗ × { }) . q 0 ∈ Q is the start state 6. Q is the set of states. q 0 . If part c) is removed from the definition a different class of automata is defined: we will call it sLR-2PDA. Such a restriction could be accomplished in the sLR-2PDA case because the auxiliary stack cannot be emptied using -moves. The set of languages that can be recognized by a sLR-2PDA is therefore a proper subset of the set of languages that can be recognized by a LR-2PDA.14 CHAPTER 2. can be conflated in: a’. Q × (Σ ∪ { }) × Γ × { } → P F (Q × Γ∗ × { }) and 4 The two transition types a. Definition 3 A sLR-2PDA is a LR-2PDA where δ is: a. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA -moves that pop elements from the second stack. and c. and Γ is Γ ∪ { } ) : a. Γ is the stacks alphabet. F ) where Q. but this would rule out reduplication (copy) languages (See the introduction) as we will see below. Σ. δ is the transition function ( where P F denotes a finite power set. Σ. Q × (Σ ∪ { }) × Γ × Γ → P F (Q × Γ∗ × { })4 5. F ⊆ Q is the set of accept states. 2. Q × Σ × Γ × Γ → P F (Q × Γ∗ × Γ2 ) c. and F are all finite sets and 1. Γ. Definition 2 A LR-2PDA is a 7-tuple (Q. We keep them separate to show the parallelism with the type of productions in the grammar model. 4. Γ. Σ is the input alphabet. For Natural Language purposes it might be desirable to keep stronger restrictions on the auxiliary stack. .

from left to right. O) M. The reflexive and transitive closure of M M (p. δ. Figure 2. If M = (Q. They specify the current input. Σ. Q × Σ × Γ × Γ → P F (Q × Γ∗ × Γ∗ ) 15 The instantaneous descriptions (IDs) of a LR-2PDA describe its configuration at a given moment.2: A Turing Machine A PDA: The input can be transversed only once.3 Comparison with TM.2. A clear example of maximum transversal and input storage is the language Lr = {wwR | w ∈ Σ∗ } which can be recognized by a PDA. state and stack contents. ⊥. then (q. plus it has an unlimited work-space. γ 2 are strings of stack symbols. η). Writes left to right or same cell Independent operation: allows e-moves Moves to the left erasing. that can be also used and reused at any time. ⊥)} for some p in F . ζα. There is a work space (storage data structure) that also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left.3: A PDA . PDA and LR-2PDA A Turing Machine: the input tape is also a storage tape. ⊥. ⊥) (Acceptance by empty stacks) (p. δ. Oβ) contains (p. The input can be transversed as many times as desired. Zα. F ) is {w | (q 0 . F ) is a LR-2PDA. ⊥. ∗ is denoted by ∗ The language ac- cepted by a LR-2PDA M = (Q. but it cannot recognize Lc = {ww | w ∈ Σ∗ } which would require additional use of the storage capacity. Σ. γ 1 . a. Γ. q 0 . . ηβ) if δ(q. ⊥. Reads left to right only. w. It has the capacity of remembering a sequence of symbols and matching it with another equal length sequence.3. w. aw. An ID is a 4-tuple (q. 2. q 0 . Z. Γ. w. ζ. PDA AND LR-2PDA b. COMPARISON WITH TM. whatever remains at the right is forgotten). γ 2 ) where q is a state w is a string of input symbols and γ 1 . Read and Write one cell One head Figure 2.

The crucial fact is that transitions type c. but unlike a TM. However. This capacity is reduced even further in the case of sLR-2PDA: both types of operations on the auxiliary stack are made dependent on consuming input. 1.16 CHAPTER 2. . The following languages which can be recognized by an LR-2PDA are examples of a maximum use of the storage of the input: L2ra = {wwR wR w | w ∈ Σ∗ } and L2rb = {wwR wwR | w ∈ Σ∗ }. a) = (q 2 . given the constraints imposed on LR-2PDAs. an LR-PDA can recognize the language L3 = {www | w ∈ Σ∗ }. then the possibility of storing information from the input seen at this move is lost. .4. a. (q 1 . . the second storage can be written to only when consuming input. a. ) = (q 1 . . a LR-2PDA is not able to transverse a substring indefinitely. Transfer from one stack to the other is restricted. au) (recognize the second copy using the symbols stored in the main stack. ) (transfer symbols from auxiliary to main stack) 3. This exemplifies how many times (and the directions in which) the same substring can be transversed. (q 3 . In order to avoid the possibility of transferring symbols from one stack to the other indefinitely. (above) . (q 2 . if information from the first ordered stack is transferred to the second auxiliary stack. A sLR-2PDA cannot recognize the copy language: if the auxiliary stack is used to store all the symbols of the input tape then it would be of no more use than storing all the symbols in the main stack: the symbols can only be transferred from the auxiliary stack to the main stack only if the input tape is being read. While recognizing the second copy all the information stored about the first copy is lost. The corresponding machine is detailed below in the exsection 2. but it can store again in the second stack (the second copy). from left to right. . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA A LR-2PDA: The input can be transversed only once. a. There are two work- spaces which also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. u) = (q 3 . consequently what is being read cannot be stored in the main or the auxiliary stack if there is a transferral occurring. a. whatever remains at the right is forgotten). Consider the following transitions (where a is a symbol in Σ). and store the symbols of the second copy back A loop back from state q 3 to state q 2 allows recognition of the language of any finite number of copies (example 2). a) (store the symbols of the first copy) 2.

d.5: sLR-2PDA 2. c. e}. {a.4: LR-2PDA are not allowed. q 0 . Transfer possible Dependent writing from 1. q 1 . M 5 = ({q 0 . Examples 2 and 3 are LR-2PDAs. EXAMPLES OF LR-2PDAS Reads left to right only. Reads left to right only. 17 Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing. Moves to the left erasing. Writes left to right or same cell Independent both operations. Moves to the left erasing. Independent both operations. {x}. Writes left to right or same cell Transfer NOT possible Dependent writing from 1. b.4. Figure 2.4 Examples of LR-2PDAs The first example is a sLR-2PDA. Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing. q 2 . Dependent moving (erasing) Figure 2. δ. q 3 ) where δ: . w ∈ Σ∗ and |w| ≤ |u|} is recognized by a sLR-2PDA. ⊥.2. Independent moving. q 3 }. Example 1 (Multiple Agreements) . However the language L = {wuw | u.

x. c. ⊥) = {(q 1 . c . δ(q 1 . x. c. x⊥)} 4. (q 1 . . $) ( d . where k > 3. x. δ(q 1 . c’) = ( ε. . $ . δ(q 2 .a. c .$. a’ ) = ( ε. ε ) = ( ε.. x. c. ⊥. δ(q 1 . d.. $ . ⊥) = {(q 2 . $ . )} 11. )} 7.a. ⊥. ⊥. ⊥)} 2. )} 10. $ .18 Three counting dependencies M1 0 CHAPTER 2. x) = {(q 1 . c . ⊥) = {(q 1 .a’) = (cc. δ(q 1 .6: Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA 1. $) = ( ε.a’) = ($. x) = {(q 2 . $ .an | n ≥ 1} 1 2 k .. ε) ( d . ε ) 1 (a. δ(q 1 . ε) = (a$. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA Four Counting Dependencies M2 Five Counting dependencies M3 (a.$. xx. x) = {(q 2 . ⊥. ⊥)} 8. c . there is an sLR-2PDA that recognizes the language L(M k ) = {an an . $ . $) = accept (c. e. . $ ) = (ε . ⊥. ⊥) = {(q 1 .. δ(q 0 . . x) = {(q 2 . a. ε ) ( [] . (q 2 .a. x. ). x⊥. ε ) Idem 3 (c.a’$) Idem 2 (b. d. . x. )} L(M 5 ) = {an bn cn | n ≥ 1} ∪ {an bn cn dn | n ≥ 1} ∪ {an bn cn dn en | n ≥ 1} It can be easily seen that the following is a proper generalization: Claim 1 For any alphabet Σ = {a1 . e. $) = ( ε. ak }. x) = {(q 2 . ⊥) = {(q 1 .$. δ(q 2 . x. x⊥. δ(q 1 . xx. c’c’) ( e . . c’$) 4 4 ( d . ⊥. ⊥)} 3. ⊥)} 12. c . x⊥). ε ) 3 ( [] . a. $) = accept 5 5 ( e. $) = accept 6 Figure 2. b. δ(q 1 . b. x) = {(q 1 .. ⊥. )} 6.a’a’) (c. δ(q 2 . . δ(q 1 . ε ) = (aa.a’) = (c$. ⊥. ⊥. xx} 9. x) = {(q 1 . d. c’) = ( $ . ε ) (c. ε ) ( [] . ε ) (b.a’) = ($. c’) = ( $ . xx}) 5. ε ) 4 ( d .

reverse the order of the stored symbols. (q 3 . ⊥. ao . y) = {(q 2 . y⊥. Σ. )} 7. y⊥. ak . b}. . ⊥)} 2. a. q 2 }. ⊥. δ(q 0 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . ⊥. δ(q 1 . ⊥. x⊥)} 2. ⊥)} 10. yw. y}. xu)} 4. ⊥) = {(q 1 . ae ae } and 9. δ(q 2 . x. transitions 5 to 8. u) = {(q 1 . . a. δ(q 1 . y) = {(q 2 . y. ⊥) = {(q 3 . u) = {(q 1 . a1 . If an intermediate copy is recognized transitions 13 and 14 allow going back to state 2 and reverse the order of the stored symbols. ⊥) = {(q 1 . . ⊥) = {(q 1 . q 1 . δ(q 2 . ao . In the next example. ae−1 . . e ≥ 3 < k and o is odd and e is even: 1. ⊥)} 11. )} 6. a2 . b. δ. . (q 3 . ak . δ(q 1 . ao−1 ) = {(q 1 . δ(q 1 . ae ) = {(q 1 . . ae . x⊥. q 1 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . δ(q 3 . ⊥) = {(q 3 . δ. ⊥. transitions 1 to 4 recognize the first occurrence of w. δ(q 1 . a1 . transitions 9 to 12 recognize either the following copy or the last copy. ⊥. δ(q 0 . yu). )} 14. Example 2 (The language of multiple copies) M wwn = ({q 0 . a2 ⊥)} 4. ⊥) = {(q 2 . b. . δ(q 1 . (q 3 . ⊥. ⊥. EXAMPLES OF LR-2PDAS Proof Construct the sLR-2PDA M k as follows: 19 M k = ({q 0 . q 0 .t. q 3 ) where δ (s. y. ⊥)} 12. such that o. a2 a2 }) 5.4. b. {x. δ(q 1 . x⊥. x) = {(q 2 . q 0 . x) = {(q 2 . ⊥. {a. δ(q 1 . a2 . a1 . ⊥. ao . q 3 }. . )} if k is odd or 10. δ(q 2 . x. q 2 . δ(q 1 . . . ⊥. δ(q 2 . a1 . )} . (q 3 . ⊥. w. x) = {(q 2 . u is any symbol in the vocabulary): 1. u) = {(q 3 . )} 7. )} 9. . δ(q 0 . a2 ) = {(q 1 . . ae . ao ao . ak −1 ) = {(q 2 . a. a. ao ⊥. ⊥. u) = {(q 3 . Σ. a1 . x⊥). w. q 2 ) where δ is as follows. y⊥)} 3. δ(q 3 . ⊥. ⊥. ⊥)} if k is even. δ(q 3 . b. xu). ao−1 ) = {(q 1 . ak −1 . ⊥)} 13. ⊥. . )} L(M 4 ) = {ww+ |w ∈ {a. δ(q 1 . δ(q 1 . a1 ⊥. y) = {(q 2 . ⊥. b}+ } 8. δ(q 3 . a1 a1 . . . ae ⊥)} 8. . ae−1 . yu)} 5. xw. δ(q 1 . δ(q 1 . . y⊥). . ⊥)} 3.2. ⊥. )} 6. .

δ(q 2 . ⊥. a. ) is nonempty. δ(q 1 . yy. {a. z) = {(q 1 . q 2 . ⊥) = {(q 3 . )} 10. Z. ⊥. I ∈ Γ. . δ(q 2 . The corresponding definition of a deterministic LR-2PDA is as follows: 2. y) = {(q 1 . y. zz)} 7. c. δ(q 3 . δ(q 1 . ⊥. z. )} 8. I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ. ⊥. m. ⊥) = {(q 3 . . )} 13. ⊥. ⊥)} 5. d. y. d. ⊥)} 15. x. . z) = {(q 2 . b. c. ⊥. ⊥. δ(q 2 . then δ(q. Deterministic GILs are recognized in linear time as we mentioned in the introduction. f }. A. ⊥. )} L(M cr3 = {a b c d e f | n. ⊥) = {(q 3 . then δ(q. b. . A ∈ Σ and Z. x. b. Z. ⊥. δ. whenever δ(q. c. 2. δ(q 3 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . e. x) = {(q 1 . I) is nonempty. x) = {(q 1 . ⊥.5. y. e. Z. q 3 ) where δ: 1. . z⊥. for each q ∈ Q and Z. x⊥)} 2. δ(q 1 . Z. a. whenever δ(q. for each q ∈ Q. δ(q 3 . δ(q 2 . ⊥. Therefore understanding the deterministic LR-2PDA is crucial for obtaining a deterministic LR parser for GILs defined in chapter 6. xx)} 3. zz. and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q. y) = {(q 1 . δ(q 0 . zy)} 6. ⊥)} 14. yy)} 12. ⊥. yz. I ∈ Γ. . y. l ≥ 1} n m l n m l 9. yx)} 4. {x. δ(q 1 . q 1 . A. z. a.5 Determinism in LR-2PDA An LR parser for a CFL is essentially a compiler that converts an LR CFG into a DPDA automata [41. . ⊥)} 2. z}. I) contain more than one element. I ∈ Γ. Z. x) = {(q 1 . δ(q 1 . ⊥) = {(q 3 . xy.1 Deterministic LR-2PDA Definition 4 A LR-2PDA is deterministic iff: 1. for no q ∈ Q. I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA Example 3 (Crossed dependencies) M cr3 = ({q 0 . y) = {(q 1 . δ(q 2 . f. 3. ⊥. . z) = {(q 1 . )} 11. ⊥. . y) = {(q 1 . . δ(q 1 . q 3 }.20 CHAPTER 2. Z. d. z. a. q 0 . 2].

. The construction of the LR(k) parsing tables would show whether the indexing mechanism for a given GIG is non-deterministic. . I i ) and (q j . then δ(q. I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. . j) = (q. ) = (q. (q. Z. for no q ∈ Q. whenever δ(q. nor with the fourth. Therefore. A ∈ Σ and Z.2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack Even if a GIG grammar is non-deterministic. Z. (q. I j ) such that I i = I j . in the following examples of transitions. Z. . because they imply a non-deterministic choice. whenever δ(q. I) contain two elements = (q i . . . and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q. I) is nonempty. ) = (q. Condition 2 prevents the choice of move for any equal 4-tuple.5. Z. b. 2. I ∈ Γ. Z j . I ∈ Γ. Definition 5 A LR-2PDA has a deterministic indexing.5. Z. We can regard to be an abbreviation for all the possible symbols in the top of the stack. (q. . the first case is not compatible with the third. I ∈ Γ. . If the non-determinism is in the CFG backbone only we can guarantee that the recognition problem is in O(n3 ). ) is nonempty. (q. 1. or is a deterministic indexing LR-2PDA if and only if: 1. for each q ∈ Q and Z. . Z i . for each q ∈ Q. i) = (q. a. a. then δ(q. a. j) 4. A. DETERMINISM IN LR-2PDA 21 Condition 1 prevents the possibility of a choice between a move independent of the input symbol ( -move) and one involving an input symbol. Z. i) 3. j) 2. 3.2. . a. Condition 3 prevents the possibility of a choice between a move independent of the second stack symbol ( -move) and one involving a symbol from the stack. it might be an advantage to be able to determine whether the non-determinism lies in the CFG back-bone only and the indexing mechanism does not introduce non-determinism. ) 2. A. I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ. a.

TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA .22 CHAPTER 2.

T the set of terminals. (LIGs.e. and α is in (V ∪ T )∗ . T. [. 23 .. I the set of indices.] represents a stack of indices. S). LIGs are Indexed Grammars with an additional constraint on the form of the productions: the stack of indices can be “transmitted” only to one non-terminal.] → [.Chapter 3 Global Index Grammars 3. and P is a finite set of productions of the form: a. i. The relation derives. P. IGs are not semi-linear (the class of ILs contains the language {a2 | n ≥ 0}). i is in I . δ be in I ∗ . As a consequence they are semi-linear and belong to the class of MCSGs.. S in V is the start symbol. a string in I ∗ . An Indexed Grammar is a 5-tuple (N. A[i..]α n where A and B are in V . on sentential forms.] c.. I. and X i in V ∪ T .. ⇒.. A → α b. (IGs) [1]. The class of LILs contains L4 but not L5 (see Chapter 1). strings in (V I ∗ ∪ T )∗ . where N is the set of non-terminal symbols. A[. and Linear Index Grammars. Let β and γ be in (V I ∗ ∪ T )∗ . have the capability to associate stacks of indices with symbols in the grammar rules. is defined as follows.1 Indexed Grammars and Linear Indexed Grammars Indexed grammars.LILs) [29].] → B[i.

].] → B[x.] γ Example 5 L(G1 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}. 2. It is a grammar that controls the derivation through the variables of a CFG.X k is a is a production of type c.. {i}. B[i..] → α B[.24 CHAPTER 3. {a}. then βAxδγ ⇒ βX 1 δ 1 .] γ b..] → B[..] → αB[i. S). S[.X k δ k γwhere δ i = δ if X i is in V and δ i = n if X i is in T.] A[. G1 = ({S.2 Global Index Grammars In the IG or LIG case. B[ ] → 3.. A[i. P.] X 1 .]c. {a. GIGs are a kind of regulated rewriting mechanism [25] with global context and history of the derivation (or ordered derivation) as the main characteristics of its regulating device. If A[. B}. the stack of indices is associated with variables. In this sense.X k δ k γ where δ i = δ if X i is in V and δ i = if X i is in T. these grammars provide a global but restricted context that can be updated at any local point in the derivation.] → aS[i.] A[. The introduction of indices in the derivation is restricted to rules that have terminals in the right-hand side.] is a production of type b. where A and B are non terminals and α and γ are (possible empty) sequences of terminals and non terminals: a. A}..]A → [. P.. The proposal we present here uses the stack of indices as a unique designated global control structure..] → A[.. c.. If [x.. A[... b... S[.....] A[] → a A Linear Indexed Grammar is an Indexed Grammar where the set of productions have the following form.. Example 4 L(G1 ) = {a2 n ≥ 0}.]d. d}...] → S[i.] → A[. then βAδγ ⇒ βBxδγ 3. A[.. then βAδγ ⇒ βX 1 δ 1 . This feature makes the use . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 1. If A → X 1 ..]...] → α B[.] → bB[... where P is: S[.] γ c. G1 = ({S..X k is a production of type a. {i}..] A[i.. S) where P : S[..

α. A ∈ N . [39]). We define the derives relation ⇒ on sentential forms.e.. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 25 of indices dependent on lexical information. #..]a β [x. A → α x ¯ Note the difference between push (type b) and pop rules (type c): push rules require the righthand side of the rule to contain a terminal in the first position.X k is a production of type a.... in a linguistic sense. I are finite pairwise disjoint sets and 1) N are non-terminals 2) T are terminals 3) I a set of stack indices 4) S ∈ N is the start symbol 5) # is the start stack symbol (not in I.]α (epsilon rules or context free (CF) rules ) (epsilon rules or CF with constraints) (push rules or opening parenthesis) (pop rules or closing parenthesis) b. x in I..2. Pop rules do not require a terminal at all.]A → [x. Definition 6 A GIG is a 6-tuple G = (N.. In the next subsection we present an even more restricted type of GIG that requires both push and pop rules in Greibach Normal Form. The constraint on push rules is a crucial property of GIGs.. without it GIGs would be equivalent to a Turing Machine. β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ and a ∈ T . a. It also makes explicit that the operations are associated to the computation of a Dyck language (using such notation as used in e. y ∈ {I ∪ #}. x ∈ I) then: δ#βAγ ⇒ δ#βX 1 . I. and allows the kind of recognition algorithm we propose in Chapter 5. If A → X 1 .N . .X k γ (production type a. S.]A → [.X k γ Using a different notation: δ#βAγ ⇒ δ#βX 1 .X k γ) (production type a. δ be in I ∗ .2 A → α [y] or or or or A→α [. A → a β x c. P ) where N. The notation at the right is intended to be more similar to the notation used in IGs and LIGs. which are strings in I ∗ #(N ∪ T )∗ as follows.. An additional constraint imposed on GIGs is strict leftmost derivation whenever indices are introduced or removed by the derivation...1 or context free ) xδ#βAγ ⇒ xδ#βX 1 ..T ) and 6) P is a finite set of productions. T. 1.2) [x] 1 The notation at the left makes explicit that operation on the stack is associated to the production and not to terminals or non-terminals. so we can consider them global.. This string of indices is not associated with variables. T.3. µ = µ or µ = [x]. Derivations in a GIG are similar to those in a CFG except that it is possible to modify a string of indices.. Let β and γ be in (N ∪ T )∗ .1 where x ∈ I.]A → [. w be in T ∗ and X i in (N ∪ T ).1 A → α a. having the following form.]α [.g. (i.

∗ 3.26 CHAPTER 3.. and a ∈ T : c. where x ∈ I...) are constrained to start with a terminal in a similar way as push (type b..X n γ µ ( or δ#wAγ ⇒ xδ#waX 1 . then: ¯ xδ#wAγ ⇒ δ#wX 1 .1 trGIGS We now define trGIGs as GIGs where the pop rules (type c. 2.) or pop : µ = x. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS This is equivalent to a CFG derives relation in the sense that it does not affect the stack of indices (push and pop rules).X n γ ) x 3. x ∈ I.. In IGs the stacks of indices are distributed over the non-terminals on the right-hand side of the rule. the stack of indices in a GIG is independent of non-terminals in the GIG case. but to an extreme: there is only one stack to be considered. x ∈ I.X n is a production of type (c. is the interpretation of the derives relation relative to the behavior of the stack of indices.]A → [.) rules in GIGs.2.. α...X n γ ( or xδ#wAγ ⇒ δ#wX 1 .. LIGs and GIGs. This produces the effect that there is only one stack affected at each derivation step..... We define the language of a GIG G. A → a β x ¯ or [x..X n γ ) x ¯ ∗ The reflexive and transitive closure of ⇒ is denoted as usual by ⇒.X n is a production of type (b. The derives definition requires a leftmost derivation for those rules (push and pop rules) that affect the stack of indices.] a β .. GIGs can have rules where the right-hand side of the rule is composed only of terminals and affects the stack of indices. If A → aX 1 . GIGs share this uniqueness of the stack with LIGs. are as follows. x ∈ I. β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ . If A → X 1 . then: µ δ#wAγ ⇒ xδ#waX k . We also introduce some examples of trGIGs modeling multiple agreements and crossed dependencies. Definition 7 A trGIG is a GIG where the set of production of types (c) (pop) rules. Unlike LIGs and IGs... Indeed push rules (type b) are constrained to start the right-hand side with a terminal as specified in GIG’s definition (6. with the consequence that LILs are semilinear. A ∈ N . IGs. L(G) to be: {w|#S ⇒ #w and w is in T ∗ } It can be observed that the main difference between. In LIGs indices are associated with only one non-terminal at the right-hand side of the rule.) or push: µ = x.b) (in other words push productions must be in Greibach Normal Form).

.. O. #. R. c. Ggdp = ({S.. P ) such that k ≥ 4 and j = k if k is even or j = k − 1 if k is odd. a j }. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Example 6 (multiple agreements) L(G5 ) = {an bn cn dn en | n ≥ 1}. C}.ak | n ≥ 1. E. S. c}. Oi → ai Oi E i+1 ai−1 ¯ 6a. {i}. O3 . #.. D1 . A. S→ a1 E 2 4a. b. S → A D 2. {a. G5 = ({S. ak }. b. A. {a . {x and P is: 1. d.Ak → ak Ak 5b. L}. a 4 . B. . A. D → d D | d x ¯ Now we generalize example 6 and show how to construct a trGIG that recognizes any finite number of dependencies (similar to the LR-2PDA automaton presented in the previous chapter): Claim 2 The language Lm = {an an . and P is composed by: 1. k ≥ 4} is in trGIL 1 2 k Proof Construct the GIG grammar Gk = ({S. E}. . d}.2. e}. Ak → ak 6b. #.. A → a A c | a B c 3. Ok → ak ak −1 ¯ L(Gn ) = {a1 a2 .. m ≥ 1}.3.. where Gc r = ({S. Oi → ai E i+1 If k is even add: If k is odd add: n n 3b. b. E i → ai Oi+1 ai and for every E i and Oi such that i is odd in Oi and i is even in E i add the following rules: 5a.E i → ai E i ai ai−1 ¯ 2. P ) and P is: S → AR L → OR | C A → aAE ¯ i A→a ¯ i E→b i R→bL i C→cC|c O → c OE | c . g }.. {a. S... Ak → ak Ak ak −1 ¯ n 4b... S → a1 S E 2 3a.an | n ≥ 1. . {a 2 . {a. P ) and P is: S → ACE C → cD ¯ i 27 A → aAb i A → ab i ¯ j ¯ j C → cD1 ¯ i D1 → CD D→d j E → eE E→e The derivation of w = aabbccddee: #S ⇒ #ACE ⇒ i#aAbCE ⇒ ii#aabbCE ⇒ i#aabbcD1 E ⇒ i#aabbcCDE ⇒ #aabbccDDE ⇒ j#aabbccdDE ⇒ jj#aabbccddE ⇒ j#aabbccddeE ⇒ #aabbccddee Example 7 (crossing dependencies) L(Gcr ) = {an bm cn dm | n. Ak }.. D. S. {a1 . E 2 . 4 ≤ k} We can generalize the same mechanism even further as follows: Example 8 (Multiple dependencies) L(Ggdp ) = { an (bn cn )+ | n ≥ 1}. c. C. B → b B | b x 4.

j. f }. P ) and P = S → AS | BS | C B→b j ¯ i C → RC | L L → Lb | b ¯ j R → RA ¯ i R → RB ¯ j R→ [#] A→a i L → La | a The derivation of ababab: #S ⇒ #AS ⇒ i#aS ⇒ i#aBS ⇒ ji#abS ⇒ ji#abC ⇒ ji#abRC ⇒ i#abRBC ⇒ #abRABC ⇒ #abABC ⇒ i#abaBC ⇒ ji#ababS ⇒ ji#ababL ⇒ i#ababLb ⇒ #ababab In the next example.2. S → aS i 2. S → bS j 3. b}∗ } Gww = ({S. #. k}. {a. Above. Example 11 (Crossing Dependencies) L(Gcr3 ) = {an bm cl dn em f l } Gcr3 = ({S. E}. d. #.2 GIGs examples We conjecture that the following languages can be defined with a GIG and cannot be defined using a trGIG. B. e. R → Rb | b ¯ j The derivation of the string abbabb: #S ⇒ i#aS ⇒ ji#abS ⇒ jji#abbS ⇒ ji#abbRb ⇒ i#abbRbb ⇒ #abbRabb ⇒ #abbabb Example 10 (Multiple Copies) L(Gwwn ) = {ww+ | w ∈ {a. C}. b. S. {i. R. b}∗ } Gwwn = ({S. {a.28 CHAPTER 3. This difference enables the use of left recursive pop rules so that the order of the derivation is a mirror image of the left-right order of the input string. A. C. D. This is not possible in trGIGs because pop rules cannot be left recursive. #. S. S. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS The derivation of the string aabbccbbcc shows five dependencies. b}. j}. F. Example 9 (Copy Language) L(Gww ) = {ww |w ∈ {a. j}. S → R 4. b}. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5. R}. {i. {i. P ) and P = 1. we can see that by using left recursive pop productions we can generate a language with a higher number of crossing dependencies than we can by using a trGIG. c. {a. P ) and P = . L. #S ⇒ #AR ⇒ #aAER ⇒ #aaER ⇒ i#aabR ⇒ ii#aabbL ⇒ ii#aabbOR ⇒ i#aabbcOER ⇒ #aabbccER ⇒ i#aabbccbRii#aabbccbbL ⇒ ii#aabbccbbC ⇒ i#aabbccbbcC ⇒ #aabbccbbcc 3. It is easy to see that by generalizing the same mechanism any finite number of crossing dependencies can be generated. B. we mentioned the difference between push and pop rules in GIGs.

c}. b. It was conjectured in [29] that the MIX language is not an IL. Joshi p. S ⇒ k#aS ⇒ #aSbScS ⇒ #abScS ⇒ j#abbcS ⇒ #abbcScSaS ⇒ #abbccSaS ⇒ #abbccaS ⇒ #abbcca We present here the proof that L(Gmix ) = Lmix .g. [11] ). {i. The number of strings of length 3n is (3n)!/(n!)3 . obtaining sets of crossing dependencies. b. The number of permutations for a string of length n is n!. B → bB | bC j ¯ i 2. j. There are also factorial duplicates for the number of times a character occurs in the string. S. and at the same time it requires that three dependencies be observed. and the need to ensure that the three dependencies (between a’s. The difficulty is due to the number of strings in the language at the basic combination level (there are 90 strings of length 6. F → aF | aB i ¯ j 4. k}. therefore ILs and GILs could be incomparable under set inclusion. . as exemplified by Lmcr = {an bm cl dn em f l g n hm il } or {an bm cl (dn em f l )+ } The next example shows the MIX (or Bach) language (the language with equal number of a’s b’s and c’s in any order.3.2. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 1} Example of a derivation for the string abbcca. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 1. D → Dd | d This can be even further generalized. S → F L ¯ k 29 3. Example 12 (MIX language) Gmix = ({S}. and 1680 strings of length 9). It allows an incredible number of possible strings of any given length in the language. b’s and c’s) are observed. C → cC | c k 5. however it is not so easy to prove or assess whether the 2 A. P ) and P is: S → cS i ¯ i ¯ j S → bS j S → aS k S → SaSbS | SbSaS S → SaScS | ScSaS S → SbScS | ScSbS ¯ k S→ L(Gmix ) = Lmix = {w|w ∈ {a. #. It is easy to design GIG grammars where the respective languages are in Lmix . In the mix language each character occurs in one third of the string and there are three characters. see e.c. We show that GILs are semilinear. E → Ee | De 7. {a. This language though conceptually simple. turns out to be a very challenging problem. This is important because it is very difficult to build a proof for the claim that the MIX language belongs (or does not belong to) to a family of languages 2 . L → Lf | Ef 6.

with the one proposed in 2. We need to prove that ut1 wt2 y t3 z is in L(GMIX ) ( |uti wti y ti z| = n + 3). First direction: L(Gmix ) is in Lmix = {w|w ∈ {a. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 0}. This blocking effect can be illustrated by the following hypothetical situation: suppose uwyz might be composed by u = u b1 . Proof . S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #acb k j j i i S ⇒ j#b ⇒ #bac ¯ j ¯ j S ⇒ j#b ⇒ #bca S ⇒ i#b ⇒ #cba ¯ i ¯ i S ⇒ i#b ⇒ #cab Inductive Hypothesis: Assume for any string uwyz in Lmix then uwyz is in L(GMIX ). 2. where ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ |uwyz| = n. Second direction: Lmix is in L(Gmix ) Basis n = 0. and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation. S ⇒ jδ #u bS ⇒ δ#u bSaScS ⇒ iδ #u bw caScS ⇒ δ #u bw caay bcS If we try to combine the derivation proposed in 1. We show ¯ ¯ that Gmix generates any uti wti y ti z It is trivial to see that the following derivation is obtained (where a corresponds to tk and b and c ¯ to the tk ’s. y = a1 y c1 z. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS language is indeed Lmix . we reach the following point: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . It might just turn out to be a significant subset of Lmix (in other words it is not so easy to figure out if there are some set of strings in Lmix that might not be generated by a particular grammar). w = w c2 and y = a2 y b2 trigger the following derivation (perhaps the only one). S ⇒ δ#uS ⇒ kδ#uaS ⇒ δ#uaSbScS ⇒ δ #uawbScS But at this point the strings b and c might block a possible derivation. 1. n ≥ 0. Where ¯ ¯ t1 t2 t3 is any string of length three in Lmix and t designates the terminals that introduce the indices ¯ in the derivation. b s and c s due to the constraint imposed by the indexing mechanism.30 CHAPTER 3. b. n = 3: S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #abc k ¯ k ¯ k is clearly in the language. It can be seen that all the derivations allow only equal number of a s.

3..(ti . tj are reduced to the case of two conflicting indices.. because the grammar is highly ambiguous..2. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 3. Claim 3 For any sequence of possibly conflicting indices the conflicting indices can be reduced to two conflicting indices in a derivation of the grammar Gmix .. Case 2. there is no guarantee that the necessary sequence of indices are removed. . We show now that this situation is impossible and that therefore Lmix is in L(GMIX )..e. tk ..ti )n ] And this problem is reduced to: ¯¯¯¯ tj ti S tj tj ti ti S i. In other words. is there any possible combination of indices : ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ti · · · tj · · · tk · · · tj · · · tk · · · ti · · · tj · · · tk · · · ti that cannot be derived by GMIX ? Remember t designates the terminals that introduce the indices ¯ in the derivation.tj . there is more than one element in one of the indices : ¯¯ ¯¯ ti tj (ti )n [tj tj (ti ti )n+1 ] for example: ab(a)n [cacb](cb)n ab(a)n [accb](cb)n S ⇒ ti S[ti ti ] reduces to the following problem which is derived by the embedded S ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ tj (ti )n [tj . and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation. We prove now that such a blocking effect in the indexing is not possible: there are always alternative derivations.. Case 1. removing the index j. clearly S ⇒ i#ti S ⇒ #ti Stj Stk S and the complements of ti . This in turn can be easily derived by: δ#S ⇒ jδ#bS ⇒ δ#baScS ⇒ in−1 δ#baan−1 cS ⇒ kin−1 δ#baan−1 caS ⇒ in−1 δ#baan−1 cacbS ⇒ δ#baan−1 cacb(cb)n−1 Claim 4 For any sequence of two possible conflicting indices there is always at least a derivation in Gmix . there are three different indices (ti = tj = tk ): ti utj vtk .: baScacbS where the two non terminal S expand the ti n−1 triples. Therefore. S ⇒ jδ #u b1 S ⇒ kjδ #u b1 a0 S ⇒ jδ #u b1 a0 Sb0 Sc0 S ∗ 31 At this point the next step should be the derivation of the non-terminal S at b0 Sc0 . This cannot be done because the derivation has to proceed with the preceding S (at a0 Sb0 ) due to the leftmost derivation constraint for GIGs. We need to account whether there is a possible configuration such that a conflict of indices arises.

3.3 GILs and Dyck Languages We argue in this section that GILs correspond to the result of the “combination” of a CFG with a Dyck language.) It can be seen that there is an alternative derivation: S ⇒ k#uai vS ⇒ #uai vbj Scj S ⇒ j#uai vbj wbi xcj S ⇒ #uai vbj wbi xcj Sci Saj ⇒ #uai vbj wbi xcj zci yaj . x.e. etc.32 CHAPTER 3. shows that any CFG is u . Formally: S ⇒ #uS ⇒ #uwS ⇒ #uwxS ⇒ #uwxzS ⇒ #uwxzy Therefore for the following combination: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ti utj wti xti z tj y tj : the following derivation is possible. Let us assume the ti triple corresponds to a(bc) and tj triple corresponds to b(ca) therefore it is: uai vbj wbi xcj zci yaj (or uai vbj ci xcj zbi yaj . The well-known Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger theorem [22]. given we are considering just two possible conflicting indices. w. if indices are introduced. This assumption is made based on the previous two claims. they are also removed in the derivation of the substring). ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ S ⇒ i#uti S ⇒ #uti S ti S ti S ⇒ j#uti vtj ti S ti S ⇒ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ∗ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ j#uti vtj ti xti S ⇒ #uti vtj ti xti S tj S tj ⇒ #uti vtj ti xti z tj y tj Similar alternatives are possible for the remaining combinations: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti v ti wtj xti z tj y tj ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wtj xti z tj y ti ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wti xtj z tj y ti ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti v ti wtj xtj z ti y tj ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wtj xti z ti y tj ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wti xtj z ti y tj ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ However the last one requires some additional explanation. Therefore we conclude that there is no possible blocking effect and there is always a derivation: S ⇒ #uawbycz ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ We also used the generate-and-test strategy to verify the correctness of the above grammar Gmix for Lmix and two other grammars for the same language. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Assume the possible empty strings u. z and y do not introduce possible blocking indices (i. The tests were performed on the strings of length 6 and 9.

Push and pop moves of the stack have the power to compute a Dyck language using the stack symbols.3. such that α1 and β 1 ∈ (N ∪ T T )∗ as follows: 1. S 1 . Proof Let L = L(G). As we have seen above. . A GIG is the “combination” of a CFG with a Dyck language: GIGs are CFG-like productions that may have an associated stack of indices. T and I are pairwise disjoint and |T ∪ I| = r ¯ ¯ The alphabet for the semi-Dyck set will be Σ0 = (T ∪ I) ∪ (T ∪ I). and α. Define φ as the homomorphism from Σ0 ∗ into T ∗ determined by φ(a) = a. where D is a semi-Dyck set. Theorem 1 (Chomsky-Sch¨ tzenberger for GILs) . which results in a PDA. if i ∈ I. Σ0 . β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new ¯ production p1 ∈ P 1. P 1) such that P1 is given according to the following conditions. The analogy in the automaton model is the combination of a Finite State Automaton with a stack. L = φ(Dr ∩ R). u For each GIL L. where G = (N T. GILs can be represented using a natural extension of Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger u theorem (we will follow the notation used in [39]). This stack of indices. GILS AND DYCK LANGUAGES 33 the result of the “combination” of a Regular Language with a Dyck Language. as we said. For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T. if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → iα1 i 3 We 3 use a subscript 1 to make clear that either productions and non-terminals with such subscript belong to the CFG G1 and not to the source GIG. I. there is an integer r. φ(¯) = a φ(i) = . Dyck languages can also provide a representation of GILs. if p = A → αaβ then p1 = A1 → α1 a¯β 1 a 2. φ(¯ = i) if a ∈ T . This “combination” is formally defined in the CFG case as follows: each context-free language L is of the form. has the power to compute the Dyck language of the vocabulary of indices relative to their derivation order. T. P ). S. GILs include languages that are not context free. R is a regular set and φ is a homomorphism [39]. #. Let Dr be the semi-Dyck set over Σ0 . a CFL and a homomorphism φ such that L = φ(Dr ∩CF L). i ∈ I.3. Define a CFG grammar G1 = (N.

34 iα 3. φ and the corresponding CFL. n > 1 then: Case (A) If: #S ⇒ #yB ⇒ #ya S 1 ⇒ zA1 ⇒ za¯ a It is clear that if z ∈ Dr . We have to show that L = φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). Basis: a) w = then S 1 ⇒ and #S ⇒ # k k n−1 b) |w| = 1 then S 1 ⇒ a¯ and #S ⇒ #a and φ(a¯) = a a a Induction Hypothesis Suppose that if there is a CFL derivation uA ⇒ uzB and z ∈ Dr then there is a GIL derivation δ#u ⇒ δ#u yA such that φ(z) = y Case (A) If: S 1 ⇒ zA1 ⇒ za¯ then a n−1 k . y ∈ k ¯ ¯ T ∗ ) implies there is a L(G1) derivation u A ⇒ u zB (where u . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 4. And if φ(z) = y and φ(u ) = u then φ(u ia¯z¯ a) = uaza a ia¯ a ia¯ The reverse direction φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)) ⊆ L. so is za¯. if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → ¯ 1 ¯ i CHAPTER 3. Suppose w ∈ φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). Suppose that if there is a GIL derivation δ#uA ⇒ δ#uyB (where u. (2) and (3) i k n−1 n i n n−1 n−1 by Induction Hypothesis and (1) S ⇒ u A1 ⇒ u ia¯B 1 ⇒ u ia¯zC 1 ⇒ u ia¯z¯ a a a a ia¯ If u . so we have defined Dr . First direction L ⊆ φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → ¯ 1 iiα [i] L(G1) is a CFL. Suppose w ∈ L. z ∈ (T T ∪ I ∪ I)∗ ) such that z ∈ Dr k and φ(z) = y for every k < n. Induction Hypothesis. The proof is an induction on the length of the computation sequence. And if φ(z) = y then φ(za¯) = ya a a Case (B) If: #S ⇒ #uA ⇒ i#uaB ⇒ i#uayC ⇒ #uaya by Induction Hypothesis. z ∈ Dr so is u ia¯z¯ a. Basis a) w = then #S ⇒ # and S 1 ⇒ b) |w| = 1 then #S ⇒ #a and S 1 ⇒ a¯ a Both and a¯ are in Dr ∩ L(G1) a The induction hypothesis exploits the fact that any computation starting at a given configuration of the index stack and returning to that initial configuration is computing a Dyck language.

z ∈ Dr so is u ia¯z¯ a and if φ(z) = y and φ(u ) = u then φ(u ia¯z¯ a) = uaza a ia¯ a ia¯ If other (possible) derivations were applied to u ia¯zC then the corresponding string would not a be in Dr . S }. . Σ = T = {a. S → aS i 2. {a. j}. The proof is an extension of the equivalence proof between CFGs and PDAs. #. {i. S → S ¯ a ia¯ 5. a. ¯ i. S →S a¯¯ ai 3. S → S b ¯ j ¯ Let D4 be the semi-Dyck set defined over Σ0 = {a. i. S. ¯ j. P ) and P = 1. S → a¯iS a 6. This is on our view a consequence of the fact that GIGs are a natural extension of CFGs. S →S b¯¯ bj 4. j} ¯ b.4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA In this section we show the equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA. ¯ i We exemplify how the Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger equivalence of GIGs can be obtained constructu ing the grammar for the language L1: Example 13 () L(Gww ) = {ww |w ∈ {a.3. Theorem 2 If L is a GIL. ¯ j. ¯ i. #. a. S → S b ¯ j 6. S → b¯ bjS 7.4. S → S a ¯ i 5. S → 3. S → 4. {a. b. P ) and P = ¯ b. b. S → bS j 3. S → S a ¯ i 7. b}∪I = {i. ¯ S. ¯ = Σ∪Σ. j} CF Lww = L(GwwD ). j}. S → S b¯¯ bj 1. 2. b}∗ } Given Gww = ({S. and we construct GwwD from Gww as follows: GwwD = ({S. S }. i. b}. EQUIVALENCE OF GIGS AND LR-2PDA #S ⇒ #yA ⇒ #ya If z ∈ Dr so is za¯a¯ and if φ(z) = y then φ(za¯a¯) = yaa a a a a Case (B) If: S 1 ⇒ u A1 ⇒ u ia¯B 1 ⇒ u ia¯zC 1 ⇒ u ia¯z¯ a then a a a ia¯ #S ⇒ #yA ⇒ i#yaB ⇒ i#uayC ⇒ #uaya i k n−1 k n−1 n−1 35 If u . then there exists a LR-2PDA M such that L= L(M).

Remember GIGs require leftmost derivations for the rules that affect the stack to apply. . δ(q 1 . If the top of the stack is a variable A. ⊥) or δ = [#]. the only change that we require is to take into account the operations on the indices stated in the grammar rules.e. j) = {(q 1 . ) = {(q 1 . x. w. δ(q 0 . compare it to the next symbol in the input. A. q 2 }. ⊥. j)| where A → w is a rule in P } [j] 4. If the top of the stack is ⊥ accept. δ(q 1 . If they match repeat. T.36 CHAPTER 3. ⊥) where δ 1 . c. If the top of the stack is a terminal a. δ(q 1 . δ 2 = ⊥ . δ. a. α. if #S ⇒ #xα if and only if (q1. a. 2. Otherwise reject this branch of the non-determinism. ) = {(q 1 . I. α. select one of the rules for A and substitute A by the string on the right-hand side of the rule. . ⊥) ∗ Notice that the proof is trivial if all the derivations are context free equivalent. w. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Proof Assume a GIG G that generates L. Construct the LR-2PDA M = ({q 0 . j) = {(q 1 . S. Repeat the following steps forever. S. q 2 ) where Γ = V ∪ T ∪ I and δ: 1. #. The corresponding formalization is: Let G = (V. δ(q 1 . . ju)| where A → aw is a rule in P } j 5. )| where A → w is a rule in P } ¯ j 6. Given a GIG G: 1. Place the marker symbol ⊥ and the start variable on the stack. A. A. A. b. q 1 . u) = {(q 1 . and affect the second stack accordingly. T. . Therefore each sentential must be of the form xα where x ∈ T and alpha ∈ V ∪ T Claim 5 #S ⇒ #xα iff (q1. ⊥)} 2. a. S⊥. . We use as a basis the algorithm used in [77] to convert a CFG into an equivalent PDA. use G to construct an equivalent LR-2PDA. w. i. . Γ. w. q 0 . P ) be a GIG. δ(q 1 . . )} Now we have to prove that L(G) = L(M). The general description of the algorithm is as follows. ) = {(q 1 . a. . S. )| where A → w is a rule in P } 3. ⊥) ∗ ∗ (q1. δ 2 = ∗ δ2 δ1 (q1. x.

S.) respectively. The last step implies A → aη ∈ P Hence: #S ⇒ γ#yβ ⇒ jγ#yaηγ = xα j ∗ Case C. α. δ). α. δ) (q 1 . A → aη ∈ P where ι = #S ⇒ δ#yβ ⇒ yaηγ = xα Case B. ya. Pop moves in the auxiliary stack. a. Therefore we need to prove that whenever the stacks are used. . . By (1.3.4. S. (q 1 . α. jδ) ¯ j ¯ j (q 1 . β. α. x.) or (2. x. ya. ∗ ¯ j The last step implies A → aη ∈ P Hence: #S ⇒ jδ#yβ ⇒ δ#yaηγ = xα The only if direction: Suppose that #S → δ#wα implies that (q 1 . k ∗ ∗ ∗ (q1. w. α. Aγ. ⊥) ∗ k−1 (q 1 . ⊥) where x ∈ T ∪ { } and δ = (q1. . jγ) where δ = jγ. jµ) where δ = jµ. . γ) j j (q 1 . (q 1 . This case is a standard CFL derivation. . the corresponding equivalence holds. x. α. Assume (q1. (q 1 . . a. a. . a. S. ⊥) ∗ (q1. ¯ j ∗ j k−1 ∗ ∗ k k ∗ (q 1 . S. Push moves in the auxiliary stack. ⊥) Case C Pop #S ⇒ jδ#yAγ ⇒ δ#yaηγ = δ#xα then by IH and 5. . δ) (q 1 . ⊥) Case B Push #S ⇒ µ#yAγ ⇒ jµ#yaηγ = jµ#xα then by IH and 4. . i. (q 1 . S. ηγ. µ) j (q 1 . ι Given the last step implies β = Aγ for some A ∈ V . ⊥) or δ = [#]. α. ⊥) k≥1 Case A context free If #S ⇒ δ#yAγ ⇒ δ#yaηγ = δ#xα where x = ya and α = ηγ then by IH and 2 or 3: (q 1 . S. δ) implies #S ⇒ δ#yβ for any k ≥ 1 and show by induction on k that #S ⇒ δ#xα Let x = ya Case A. ya. β. EQUIVALENCE OF GIGS AND LR-2PDA 37 This holds true by the equivalence of PDA and CFG. S. β. ya. ⊥) First direction (if) Basis: #S ⇒ #x if (q1. that the claim above is a particular case of: #S ⇒ δ#xα iff (q1. ⊥) k−1 (q 1 . δ) Induction Hypothesis. a. S. δ) . ya. ⊥. S. Aγ. δ) for any (q 1 . ⊥) k−1 and α = ηγ Hence: (q 1 . δ) (q 1 .e.

[qAq n ] → a [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . Assume Γ is composed of two disjoint subsets Γ1 . . S → q 0 ⊥q for each q in Q And for each q. A. δ. ⊥) k−1 CHAPTER 3. B n−1 in Γ and i... I. plus the new symbol S. then the production is [qAq 1 ] → a. Let M be the LR-2PDA (Q. B 1 B 2 ... B 1 B 2 . ). S. a. α. a.. q 1 .. Σ. ⊥) ∗ ∗ (p. B 1 .[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] such that [j] δ(q. B 1 B 2 . with the stack of indices in the grammar. We follow the proof from [41]. (push) 5. A. and cannot be given the constraints imposed on the possible transitions in a LR-2PDA. a. j). S. x. a. ⊥. jδ) ∗ ¯ j (q 1 . q n in Q. q 0 . A. α. A. q 2 . a. i. P ) where V is the set of variables of the form qAp. δ) Given the values δ. . This conversion algorithm to construct a CFG from a PDA follows the one in [41] (including the notation). A in Γ.. #. ⊥) . a must be in δ Σ. Γ2 . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (q 1 . proving by induction on the steps in a derivation of G or moves of M that: #[qAp] ⇒ #w if and only if (q.[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] such that δ(q. Notice that in case 4. Γ. [qAq n ] → a [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . ya. A. and P is the set of productions. ).B n−1 . .. w. In all the cases if n = 1. j) contains (q 1 .B n−1 . We need to show that L(G) = L(M ). and 4.. F ).. A. B 2 . Let G be a GIG = (V. Aγ. ⊥. j in I. ) contains (q 1 ..B n−1 . each a in Σ ∪ { }.e. such that Γ1 is used in the main stack and Γ2 is used in the auxiliary stack.. ⊥) Theorem 3 If L is recognized by a LR-2PDA M. 4..... ⊥) step ≤ k − 1) we obtain #S ⇒ δ#xα = #x iff (q 1 .. 3. 1. j) contains (q 1 .38 (q 1 . the only modification is to mimic the operation of the auxiliary stack. δ) = (q 1 . i) contains (q 1 . B 1 B 2 . ji). items 3. .[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] (pop) such that ¯ j δ(q.[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] such that j δ(q.. [qAq n ] → a [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] ..B n−1 . q and p in Q. I = Γ2 . . 2. α = (which excludes Case B Push to be the last step or move but not as a (q 1 . Proof Given a LR-2PDA construct an equivalent GIG as follows. [qAq n ] → a [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . S. Σ. ⊥. then L is a GIL. This construction is defined so that a leftmost derivation in G of a string w is a simulation of the LR-2PDA M when processing the input w.

A. γ k ) then γ 1 #u[qAp] ⇒ γ k #uw. q m + 1 = p. B m .. ay. . in k moves (for any k ≥ 1) then the GIG G will derive the same string w and string of indices γ k I.[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] where δ can be only be some j in I then γ 1 = j or δ is [⊥]. γ k −1 ) (p. . ... γ 1 ) implies #[qAq n ] ⇒ γ 1 #a [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . given the only type of rules/moves applicable are 1 and 2 (in this case where δ = [⊥]).B m . ie. ⊥) δ ∗ (q i+1 . the induction hypothesis states that whenever the LR-2PDA M recognizes a string emptying the main stack and changing the auxiliary stack from a string of indices γ 1 to a string of indices γ k .. A. PDA equivalence. First (if) direction: Induction Hypothesis: If (q. (q. ⊥. . w. A.y m−1 [q n−1 B n−1 q n ] ⇒ γ k #ay 1 y 2 . y = y 1 ... . so the induction hypothesis is: If γ 1 #u[qAp] ⇒ γ k #uw then (q. q m +1.. The basis is also proven for both directions. γ k −1 = j ∈ I and δ = ¯ j Now the “only if” part (the basis was proven above). γ k ) implies: δ #[qAq n ] ⇒ γ k −1 #ay 1 y 2 . w ∈ Σ∗ . (q i ..y m where each y i has the effect of popping B i from the stack (see the details corresponding to the PDA-CFG case in [41]) then there exist states q 2 .. y. γ 1 ) Suppose: k ∗ (p.. ⊥. γ i ) for 1 ≤ j ≤ m The first move in I. y i . In other words..[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] ⇒ γ k #ay 1 y 2 . these are a CFG and a PDA and therefore follows from the standard CFG. such that the inductive hypothesis holds for each: II. γ k −1 = ⊥ and δ = or [#] or 2. y m . implies: #[qAq n ] ⇒ γ 1 #a[q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . y. w. ay. γ i+1 ) then γ i #[q i B i q i+1 ] ⇒ γ i+1 #y i ∗ (q 1 .: (q.3. ⊥) (q 1 . Therefore I. A. γ k ) for any k ≥ 1. (q.y m = #w where γ k = ⊥. A. EQUIVALENCE OF GIGS AND LR-2PDA 39 If only rules created with step 1 or 2 and the corresponding transitions are used then..4. ...y m = #w The same holds for the last symbol that is extracted from the stack (from II again): III.B m . where γ i ∈ I ∗ and ∗ u. γ k ) Decomposing y in m substrings. then either 1. γ 1 ) k (p.... .. ⊥) ∗ k−1 ∗ (q n−1 . ay. B 1 B 2 . then γ 1 = . B 1 B 2 . B i . ⊥.... γ 1 ) k−1 (p. ⊥.

xn ): (q. γ i ) ∗ (q i+1 . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS I.. γ i+1 ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ n Now we can add B i+1 . ⊥. A. B n . . ∗ where γ 1 is ⊥ if δ in the first step of I. B i . γ k ) #u[qAq n ] ⇒ γ k −1 #uax1 . . we obtain: #S ⇒ #w iff (q 0 . 2.. w. . .. x1 x2 .B n .. γ i ) ∗ ∗ (q i+1 . #u[qAq n ] ⇒ γ 1 #ua [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . ⊥.B n ..xm [q n−1 B n−1 q n ] ⇒ γ k #uw which in turn implies: δ (q. w. is If we consider the last step from I.[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] ⇒ γ k #uw δ k−1 where q n = p. w.. in the construction of the GIG G. then (q.: and from this move and II..B n to each stack in the sequence of ID’s so that: II.n... . B i+1 . Z 0 ) ∗ ∗ (p. ⊥). ⊥. we obtain (remember w = ax1 x2 . we can decompose w as ax1 x2 . So according to 1. γ k ) where the possibilities are either xm = xn or δ = [⊥] or and given we require γ k to be ⊥ then the only possibilities are: (A) either γ k = γ k −1 = ⊥ and δ = (B) δ = γ k −1 then γ k = ⊥ ¯ The final observation is that we satisfy the first claim assigning the following values: q = q O and A = Z 0 .. .xn .40 CHAPTER 3. xi .. (q i ..xn such that γ i #ui [q i B i q i+1 ] ⇒ γ i+1 #ui xi therefore by the induction hypothesis: (q i .. w. ⊥) or xm = (q n−1 . A... xi . where i = 1. A. B 1 B 2 .. B i B i+1 . ⊥) k−1 ∗ (p. ⊥) (q 1 . γ i+1 ) From the first step of the derivation in I.B n . γ k − 1) (q n .. . Again. ⊥.... γ 1 ) or [⊥].. xm .

The corresponding automaton is another two stack machine.1 Relations to other families of languages There are two clear cut relations that place GILs between CFLs and CSLs: GILs are included in CSLs and GILs include CFLs. Most of other relations are more difficult to determine. The additional stack in GIGs/LR-2PDA. GILs are incomparable to the Growing Context Sensitive Languages (GCSLs). However GCSLs might include trGILs. the relation to LILs is interesting because of their similarities both in the grammar and the automaton model. GILs might include LILs and perhaps LCFRLs. Moreover. another family of languages that has some similarities with GILs. • Proper inclusion of GILs in CSLs.Chapter 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. The relation to Growing Context Sensitive languages is interesting for a similar reason. corresponds to an amount of tape equal to the input in a LBA. 41 . Therefore a LBA can simulate a LR-2PDA. GILs and ILs might be incomparable. We do not address possible relationship with the counter languages [42] however. It is interesting to establish the relation of GILs to LILs and LCFRLs because there is an extensive tradition that relates these families of languages to natural language phenomena. and the constraints imposed on the use of the additional stack in the GIL automaton might be seen as a shrinking property. Due to the constraints on the push productions at most the same amount of symbols as the size of the input can be introduced in the additional stack.

This result is obtained from the definition of GIGs. However it remains as an open question. • GILs and Growing Context Sensitive Languages are incomparable.2 Closure Properties of GILs The family of GILs is an Abstract Family of Languages. T 1 . The same argument holds for w in L2 starting the derivation #S 3 ⇒ #S 2 . n 4. I 1 ∪ I 2 . S 4 . ILs are not semi-linear and GILs are semi-linear. S 2 ) Since we may rename variables at will without changing the language generated. instead of two CFG grammars. This can be proved using the same type of construction as in the CFL case (e. #. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES • Proper inclusion of GILs in ILs. We consider this quite possible. Union L1 ∪ L2 :. [41]). GILs contain some languages that might not be ILs. • Proper inclusion of LILs in GILs. Proof Let L1 and L2 be GILs generated respectively by the following GIGs: G1 = (N 1 . Assume also that S 3 . I 1 .42 CHAPTER 4. P 1 . concatenation and Kleene closure. care should be taken that the two sets of stack indices be disjoint. P 3 . I 2 . Construct the grammar G3 = (N 1 ∪ N 2 . we assume that N 1 . S 3 ) where P 3 is P 1 ∪ P 2 plus the productions S 3 → S 1 | S 2 . P 2 . N 2 . using two GIG grammars. For concatenation. such as the MIX language. There are no other derivations from S 3 than #S 3 ⇒ #S 1 and #S 3 ⇒ #S 2 Therefore L1 ∪ L2 = L3 .g. I 1 . S 1 ) and G2 = (N 2 . We discuss this issue in Chapter 6. T 2 . ∗ . I 2 are disjoint. Proposition 1 GILs are closed under: union. This is an open question. #. S 5 are not in N 1 or N 2 . #. A string w is in L1 if and only if the derivation #S 3 ⇒ #S 1 ⇒ #w is a derivation in G3 . The copy language {ww|w ∈ Σ∗ } is not a GCSL [53]. • CFLs are properly included in GILs. T 1 ∪ T 2 . GCSLs include the language {ba2 |n ≥ 1} which is not semi-linear.

The substituting CFG must be in Greibach Normal Form (so as to respect the constraints on productions that push indices in the stack). Let L be L(G) and for each a in Σ let La be L(Ga ). is a derivation in G4 for some w. P 4 .4. #. A string w is in L1 if and only if the derivation #S 4 ⇒ #S 1 ⇒ #wS 2 is a derivation in G4 . Assume that the non-terminals of G an Ga are disjoint. where each Ga is in GNF. P 5 . Notice that #S 4 ⇒ #S 1 ⇒ δ#wS 2 for some δ in I 1 does not produce any further derivation because the I 1 and I 2 are disjoint sets. (c) the set of indices I and # are the set of indices and # from G (d) the start symbol of G1 is the start symbol of G. S 1 ) where P 5 is P 1 plus the productions: S5 → S1 S5 | . and for each a in Σ let La be a CFL. (e) The productions of G1 are all the productions of each Ga together with all the productions from G modified as follows: replace each instance of a terminal a in each production by the start symbol of Ga . T 1 ∪ T 2 . The proof that L(G4 ) = L(G1 )L(G2 ) is similar to the previous one. -free homomorphisms. L ⊆ Σ∗ .2. Proof Let L be a GIL. Proposition 2 GILs are closed under substitution by -free CFLs. [#] ∗ ∗ ∗ The proof is similar to the previous one. and a string u is in L2 if and only if the derivation #wS 2 ⇒ #wu. T 1 . I 1 ∪ I 2 . I 1 . CLOSURE PROPERTIES OF GILS 43 Concatenation:. -free regular sets. (b) the terminals of G1 are the terminals of the substituting grammars Ga . given the only production that uses S 1 and S 2 is S 4 L(G4 ) = L1 · L2 . #. Construct a GIG grammar G1 such that: (a) the non terminals of G1 are all the non-terminals of G and of each Ga . Closure:.Let G5 = (N 1 ∪ {S 5 }. Construct G4 = (N 1 ∪ N 2 . therefore also no δ ∈ I 2 can be generated at this position. This proof adapts the substitution closure algorithm given in [41] to prove substitution closure by CFLs. S 4 ) such that P 4 is P 1 ∪ P 2 plus the production S 4 → S 1 S 2 .

⊥. a similar proof to that used in the CFL case works for these closure properties: in both cases a LR-2PDA with a modified control state is used (again see [41] for the CFL case). X. Proposition 3 If L is a Global Index Language and R is a regular set. F ). a. Σ. Γ. Γ. q 0 ]. Proof Let h : Σ → ∆ be a homomorphism and let L be a GIL. η) and δ(p0 . a. . Parikh [60] showed that CFLs are semilinear. w.3 Semilinearity of GILs and the Constant Growth property The property of semilinearity in a language requires that the number of occurrences of each symbol in any string (also called the commutative or Parikh image of a language) to be a linear combination of the number of occurrences in some finite set of strings. F G ) and let R be L(A) for a DFA A = (QA . . η) if and only if: δ A (p. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES Note that the requirement that the substituting grammar be in GNF implies that it is an -free CFL. Again. w. ⊥. w) = p i Proposition 4 Global Index Languages are closed under inverse homomorphism. Σ. γ. γ. p0 . Y ) contains ([p . Y ) contains (q . δ. q 0 ]. X.44 CHAPTER 4. in which case p = p and η = i or η = Y It is easy to see that ([p0 . δ A . Let L = L(M ) where M is the LR-2PDA (Q. γ. L ∩ R is a Global Index Language. Construct M’ = (QA ×QG . Z. η). F A ). δ. F A ×F G ) such that δ is defined as follows: δ([p. GILs are also closed under intersection with regular languages and inverse homomorphism. Proof Let L be L(M ) for an LR-2PDA M =(QG . q]. [p0 . q 0 . Construct an LR-2PDA M 1 accepting h−1 (L) in the following way. 4. q]. η) if and only if (an induction proof is given by [41] for the CFL case) (q 0 . . q ]. Therefore L(M 1) = {w | h(w) ∈ L}. γ. ⊥. δ G . a) = p and δ G (q. ⊥) ([p. (push) productions which require Greibach normal form. Γ. On input a M 1 generates the string h(a) stores it in a buffer and simulates M on h(a). q 0 . Note that a may be . ⊥) (q. GILs do not tolerate an substitution due to the constraints on type b. Σ. Σ.

The proof of this lemma is in [30]. We will not discuss here whether semilinearity is the correct approach to formalize constant growth. define a mapping from Σ∗ into N n as follows: ψ(w) = (|a1 |(w). Semilinearity has been assumed as a good formulation of the constant growth property of natural languages (e. The Parikh image of a language is the set of all vectors obtained from this mapping to every string in the language. L2 in Σ∗ are letter-equivalent if ψ(L1 ) = ψ(L2 ). [46..3. 86]).6. [55... We follow the proof presented in [37] to prove that the class of languages L(M c ).g. an }.4. is semilinear provided that the languages corresponding to C are semilinear.e.g. as Theorem 5. The Parikh mapping is a function that counts the number of occurrences in every word of each letter from an ordered alphabet. Roughly speaking.. where M c is obtained from an automata class C by augmenting it with finitely many reversal-bounded counters. concept. 60].. However. [33. Two languages L1 . + cm v m |ci ∈ N. Intuitively. . Theorem 5 If L is a GIL then L is a semi-linear language. SEMILINEARITY OF GILS AND THE CONSTANT GROWTH PROPERTY 45 i. ψ(L) = {ψ(w)|w ∈ L}. that CFLs are letter-equivalent to a regular set. . The commutative or Parikh image of a language L ∈ Σ∗ . We will use the following lemma in the proof of semilinearity for GIGs. Lemma 4 If X and Y are semilinear subsets of Nn . Definition 9 Parikh Mapping (see [39]) : Let Σ be {a1 .. . We assume a definition of semilinearity of languages such as that found in [39. the constant growth property requires that there should be no big gaps in the growth of the strings in the languages.. If ψ(L) is semi-linear. 37]). |an |(w)) where |ai |(w) denotes the number of occurrences of ai in w. v i ∈ Nn for 1 ≤ i ≤ m} b) is semilinear if V is the finite union of linear sets.1. L is a semi-linear language. Definition 8 A set V in Nn a) is linear if V = {v 0 + c1 v 1 + . 35]). then their intersection X ∩Y is also semilinear. recently it has been claimed that semilinearity might be too strong a requirement for models of natural language (e.g. the property of semi-linearity of GILs follows from the properties of the control mechanism that GILs use. This property has been extensively used as a tool to characterize formal languages (e..

Let S 2 be the semilinear set {(a1 . Σ. P 1) Define a CFG grammar G1 = (N. S. Proof Given a GIG G = (N. ¯k ∈ N} where the pairs of ik and ¯k i i i i ¯ coordinates correspond to symbols in I and the corresponding element in I. if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iiα [i] It can be seen that L(G1) ⊆ Σ1 ∗ and that for each w that is in the GIL L(G) there is a word w1 ∈ L(G1) such that |i|(w1) = |¯ i|(w1). From S3 we obtain S 0 the semilinear set corresponding to ψ(L(G)). Dr and L1 are semilinear by the Parikh theorem (L1 and Dr are CFLs). .46 CHAPTER 4. and α. ik . 4.. For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T.. ip . in . ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new production p1 ∈ P 1.4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs This section and the remainder of this chapter will present some exploratory ideas rather than established results. We can consider pumping lemmas for different families of languages as specifying the following facts about them: .. S.. in other words. P ) such that ¯ Σ1 is (Σ ∪ I ∪ I) and P 1 is given according to the following conditions. By the Parikh theorem [60] the Parikh map of the CFL L(G1). if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iα ¯ i 4. ¯n . i ∈ I. Computing the intersection of S 1 and S 2 amounts to compute the properties that the control performed by the additional stack provides to GILs. am . ¯p )|aj . removing the illegal derivations. #. removing the pairs of ik and ¯k coordinates. as follows: 1.. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES The proof exploits the properties of Theorem 1: every GIL L = φ(Dr ∩ L1) such that L1 is a CFL. if p = A → α then p1 = A → α 2.. Σ1 . if p = A → α then p1 = A → iα i 3. note that S 2 is a subset of S 1 . The intersection of S 1 and S 2 is a computable semilinear set S 3 according to [30]. This follows from Theorem 1. We modify the construction of L1 in the proof of Theorem 1. ψ(L(G1)) is an effectively computable semi-linear set S 1 . I. i Corollary 6 The emptiness problem is decidable for GILs.

4.4. PUMPING LEMMAS AND GILS

47

• Regular Languages: Inserting any number of copies of some substring in a string always gives a regular set. • Context Free Languages: every string contains 2 substrings that can be repeated the same number of times as much as you like. • GCFLs, LCFRLs, others and GILs, there is always a number of substrings that can be repeated as many times as you like. Following upon this last observation, the following definition is given in [35] as a more adequate candidate to express properties of natural language. This is a candidate for a pumping lemma for GILs. Definition 10 (Finite Pumpability) . Let L be a language. Then L is finitely pumpable if there is a constant c0 such that for any w ∈ L with |w| > c0 , there are a finite number k and strings u0 , ..., uk and v 1 , ..., v k such that w = u0 v 1 u1 v 2 u2 ...uk −1 v k uk and for each i, 1 ≤ |v i | < c0 and for any p ≥ 0, u0 v 1 p u1 v 2 p u2 ...uk −1 v k p uk ∈ L. Compare the previous definition with the following k-pumpability property of LCFRS ([71], and also in [35]) which applies to any level-k language. Definition 11 (k-pumpability) Let L be a language. Then L is (universally) k − pumpable if there are constants c0 ,k such that for any w ∈ L with |w| > c0 , there are stringsu0 , · · · , uk and v 1 , · · · , v k such that u0 v 1 u1 v 2 u2 · · · uk −1 v k uk , for each i : 1 ≤ |v i | < c0 , and for any u0 v 1 p u1 v 2 p u2 ...uk −1 v k p uk ∈ L. In this case the k value is a constant determined by the k-level of the language.

4.4.1

GILs, finite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs

We showed that there is no boundary in the number of dependencies that can be described by a GIL (see the language Lm in the previous chapter). This fact and the candidate pumping lemma for GILs are related to the following observation. For any CFG that recognizes a number of pairs of dependencies, ( e.g., La = {an bn , cm dm |n ≥ 1, m ≥ 1} has 2 pairs of dependencies or turns [32, 39, 88, 5]) there is a GIG that generates the total number of dependencies included in the

48

CHAPTER 4. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES

pairs. This is done by “connecting” the CFG pairs of dependencies (turns) with “dependencies” (turns) introduced by the GIG extra stack. This “connection” is encoded in the productions of the corresponding terminals. For example, in La it is possible to “connect” the b’s and c’s, in a turn of the GIG stack: any production that has a b in the right-hand side also adds an index symbol to the GIG stack (our notation for this will be bx ), and every production that has a c in the right-hand side removes the same index symbol from the production stack (we will denote this by c¯ ). x La = {an bn cm dm |n ≥ 1, m ≥ 1} → Lb = {an bx n c¯ m dm |n ≥ 1, m ≥ 1} = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1, } x Conjecture 1 For any k-turn CFG, where k > 1 is finite, there is a GIG that generates a language with (2 · k) dependencies. These observations are also related to the fact that LIGs (and the equivalent automata), can connect one-turn for each stack [85]. Therefore the boundary of the number of dependencies is four.

4.5

Derivation order and Normal Form

We introduced GIGs as a type of control grammar, with leftmost derivation order as one of its characteristics. GIG derivations required leftmost derivation order. We did not address the issue of whether this is a normal form for unconstrained order in the derivation, or if an extension of GIGs with unconstrained order in the derivation would be more powerful than GIGs. In this section we will speculate about the possibility of alternative orders in the derivation, e.g. (rightmost) or free derivation order. The following grammar does not generate any language in either leftmost or rightmost derivation order: Example 14 L(G6 ) = {an bm cn dm }, where G6 = ({S, A, B, C, D}, {a, b, c, d}, {i, j}, S, #, P ) and P = 1. S → A B C D 6. C → cC
¯ i

2. A → aA
i

3. A → a
i ¯ j ¯ j

4. B → bB
j

5. B → b
j

7. C → c
¯ i

8. D → dD

9.D → d

The only derivation ordering is an interleaved one, for instance all the a’s are derived first, then all the c’s, followed by the b’s and finally the d’s. However we know that such a language is a GIL. It is our belief that the following conjecture holds, though it might be difficult to prove. Unrestricted derivation order would introduce only unnecessary additional ambiguity.

4.5. DERIVATION ORDER AND NORMAL FORM

49

Conjecture 2 Unrestricted order of the derivation in a GIG is not more powerful than leftmost derivation order. Following the previous example, the next example might seem impossible with leftmost/rightmost derivation. It looks like an example that might support the possibility that unrestricted order of the derivation might yield more powerful grammars. Example 15 L(G6b ) = {an bm cl dm en f l | n, m, n ≥ 1}, where G6b = ({S, A, B, C, D, E, F }, {a, b, c, d, e, f }, {i, j, k}, S, #, P ) and P is: 1. S → ABCDEF 5. B → b
j k

2. A → aA
i

3. A → a
i

4. B → bB
j

6. C → cC | c 10.E → e
¯ i

7. D → dD
¯ j

8.D → d
¯ j

9.E → eE
¯ i

11. F → f F
¯ k

12. F → f
¯ k

A derivation with unrestricted order would proceed as follows: S ⇒ ABCDEF ⇒ i#aABCDEF ⇒ ji#abCDEF ⇒ kji#abcDEF ⇒ ji#abcDEf ⇒ i#abcdEf ⇒ #abcdef However the following grammar generates the same language in leftmost derivation: Example 16 L(G6c = {an bm cl dm en f l | n, m, n ≥ 1}, where G6b = ({S, A, B, C, D, E, F }, {a, b, c, d, e, f }, {i, j, k}, S, #, P ) and P is: 1. S → A 5. B → bC
j

2. A → aA
i k

3. A → aB
i

4. B → bB
j

6. C → cCf | cM f 10.E → De
¯ i

M → DE

7. D → dD
¯ j

8.D → d
¯ j

9.E → Ee
¯ i

Similarly the following language which contain unordered crossing dependencies is a GIL: {an bm cl dp bm an dp c l |n, m, l, p ≥ 1}
2 2 2 2

The next example also shows that leftmost and rightmost derivation ordering might produce two different languages with the same grammar for each ordering, introducing therefore another dimension of ambiguity. Example 17 L(G7 ) = {ww|w ∈ {a, b}∗ } ∪ {wwR |w ∈ {a, b}∗ } derivation respectively) (in leftmost and rightmost

G7 = ({S, S , A, B}, {a, b}, {i, j}, S, #, P ) and P =

50 1. S → aS
i

CHAPTER 4. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES 2. S → bS
j

3. S → S 8. A → a
¯ i

4. S → S A 9. B → b
¯ j

5. S → S B

6. S → A

7. S → B

Rightmost derivation produces: #S → i#aS → ji#abS → ji#abS → ji#abS B → ji#abAB → i#abAb → #abab
i j ¯ j ¯ i

Leftmost derivation produces: #S → i#aS → ji#abS → ji#abS → ji#abS A → ji#abBA → i#abbA → #abba
i j ¯ j ¯ i

in figure 5.1 If all the possible stack configurations in a GIG derivation were to be represented. For instance. iji#. The set of nodes that represents the top of the stack will be called active nodes (following Tomita’s terminology). 51 . Each node at length n can have an edge only to a node at length n − 1. This is a departure from Tomita’s graph-structured stack.Chapter 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. and [50] for an approach to statistical parsing using graph algorithms. jj#.1 Graph-structured Stacks In this section we introduce the notion of a graph-structured stack [80] to compute the operations corresponding to the index operations in a GIG. jij#. 1 See [51] for a similar approach to Tomita’s. The numbers indicate the length. ij#. The one at the right is equivalent to the maximal combination of stack configurations for indices i. the number of edges connecting a node to others is limited. the active nodes are represented by circles and the inactive are represented by squares. the number of possible configurations would grow exponentially with the length of the input. jii#. The graph-structured stack at the left represents the following possible stack configurations: iii#. j with maximum length of stack 3. each node of the graph-structured stack will represent a unique index and a unique length of the stack. As an initial approach. iii#.e. jjj#. (i. ii#. While the number of possible nodes increases. j#.1. etc. ijj#. It is a device for efficiently handling of nondeterminism in stack operations. ji#.) #. i#.

Therefore.1 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm Earley Algorithm. which are composed of a ”dotted” rule and a starting position: [A → α • β.2 5.3 CHAPTER 5. These items are used to represent intermediate steps in the recognition process. currentnode connects only to nodes of current length-1.0 j..3 i.3 Figure 5. given a string w = a1 a2 . Pop(curretnode). pj ]. Retrieves all the nodes that are connected by an edge from the currentnode. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS i.1 j. Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the size of the indexing vocabulary. An item [A → α • β. T.an with n ≥ 0 any integer i such that 0 ≤ i ≤ n is a position in w.2 i..1 $. S.0 j.. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [S → • S$.oldnode).2 j. Earley’s main data structures are states or “items”.2 j.1 $.1: Two graph-structured stacks The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. Earley items are inserted in sets of states. 0] 2 For 0 ≤ i ≤ n do: Process each item s ∈ S1i in order performing one of the following: a) Predictor: (top-down prediction closure) . 5. P ) be a CFG. Let G = (N.ai .2 i. Because at this point we use nodes of unambiguous length. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary.2. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string. Earley’s parsing algorithm [27] computes a leftmost derivation using a combination of top-down prediction and bottom-up recognition. Algorithm 1 (Earley Recognition for GFGs) . Push(newnode.52 i. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n.. pj ] is inserted in the set of states S i if α corresponds to the recognition of the substring aj .3 i.1 j. n ≥ 0. There are as many sets as positions in the input string.

j] to S i + 1 3 4 If S i+1 is empty.2. O. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM If [B → α • Aβ. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [A → αa • β. #. 0. Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string. P ) be a GIG. j] ∈ S i : for [A → α • Bβ. k] to S1i c) Scanner: equivalent to shift in a shift-reduce parser. 0] 2 For 0 ≤ i ≤ n do: Process each item s ∈ S i in order performing one of the following: a) Predictor b) Completer c) Scanner 2 Actually O ≤ 2n. 0). S → • S$. k] ∈ S j : add [A → αB • β.5.{S}. used to record the ordering of the rules affecting the stack. and O. if pop rules “erase” symbols from the stack. S.b}. A → α • Aβ. I. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n.{#}. a pointer to an active node in the graph-structured stack. T. i] to S i b) Completer: (bottom-up recognition) If [B → γ • . such that O ≤ n where n is the length of the input. If i = n and Sn+1 = {[S → S$ • . If [A → α • aβ. pj ] Algorithm 2 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) .{P}) with P: S → aS | bS S→S| ¯ i . 0). 0]} then accept 53 5. Let G = (N. An example of such case would be the following i grammar: Gd = ({S}.{a. n ≥ 0. Reject.2 Therefore Earley items for GILs might be as follows: [∆. We modify Earley items adding two parameters: ∆.2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for GILs.2. j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P : add [A → • γ.{i}. We use the graph-structured stack and we represent the stack nodes as pairs of indices and counters (the purpose of the counters is to keep track of the length of the stack for expository purposes).

2 add every [(δ 2 . O. j] ∈ S i : µ for [(δ 2 . 0]} then accept The structure of the main loop of Earley’s algorithm remains unchanged except for the require- ment that the initial item at S 0 (line 1) and the accepting item at S n + 1 (line 4) point to the empty stack node (#. k] to S i δ 3. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: µ add [∆. B → α • Aβ. A → α • Bβ. O.t. 1. j] ∈ S i where µ = µ δ or µ = [i]: for [(δ 2 . Completer B If [∆1 . scanner. C 1 ) ) s. (δ 1 . 0. A → α • Bβ. A → • γ. B → γ • . to perform the corresponding operations on the graph-structured stack. k] to S i δ The following example shows the trace of the items added to a chart parser implementing the above algorithm. This implementation used Shieber’s deduction engine backbone [72]. C 1 ) = (δ 2 . C 1 )) s. i] to S i δ such that: if δ ∈ I then δ 2 = δ. k] ∈ S j where δ 2 = i if µ = ¯ i: δ add [∆1 . O − 1. j] to S i + 1 µ 3. C 2 ). we represent nodes in the graph-structured stack with pairs (δ.54 3 4 If S i+1 is empty. Scanner If [∆. O1 . and have the corresponding initial order in the derivation. 0). O − 1. Predictor If [(δ 1 . CHAPTER 5. S → S$ • . B → γ • . C 1 ) = (δ 2 . C 1 ). Reject. completer used in the For loop in 2 are modified as follows. 0). C 2 ) ∈ pop((δ 1 . j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P : µ δ 1. O. C 2 ). k] ∈ S j where δ 2 = i if µ = [i]: add [∆1 . C 2 ). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS If i = n and Sn+1 = {[(#. O. C 2 ). O. The operations predictor. O2 = O1 + 1 and push( (δ 2 . C 2 = C 1 − 1 if δ = then (δ 1 .t. C 2 ) and O1 = O2 ( move) if δ = [δ 1 ] then (δ 1 . A → αa • β. A → αB • β. As we said. The example . A → α • aβ. O2 . C 2 ) and O1 = O2 2. C) such that C ≤ n. A → αB • β. O. Completer A If [∆1 . C 2 = C 1 + 1 if δ = ¯ and i = δ 1 then O2 = O1 + 1 and i (δ 2 .

5.c].c].[]. Predotlist.[b.1.[i.2.1. Postdotlist.S.2) 11.4) .B. [Stacksymbol.1.[].1) Adding to stack: <22732> item((i. StackOperation].[S.[i.2)]) 12 Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.[b. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 55 shows the recognition of the string aabbccdd with the grammar G2 transformed into a trGIG.1) 6.0.3.[].[S].e]. S). initialposition.0.2.2.ir].[B.S.c].c].[].c].3) 16 Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.[]. OrderCounter.2.il].3.1. Adding to chart: <27798> item(B.4.[#.ir].[i. Example 18 (Trace of aabbccdd) L(G2 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}.ir].ir].Adding to chart: <27540> item(S.il].0.[a].0.1.[].[#.0.3.2.2) 13.ir].il].[#.3) 17.[b]. Adding to chart: <23852> item(B. d}.[b].e].[b.[B.[i.c]. Adding to chart: <23851> item(B.2.1.[].3) 15.1.2) 10. i S→B B → bBc ¯ i B → bc ¯ i 1 Adding to chart: <10898> item(<start>.c].c].[].e].3.e]. {i}.0.2. c.S.1) 5.1.il].1.Adding to chart: <23724> item(S.B.(#. B}.2) 14.1.0.0.2.[].il].2.[B].1.[i.[i. StackCounter.[].3.ir]. {a.3).[i.1.0) 2 Adding to chart: <27413> item(S.2.0) 3 Adding to chart: <23470> item(S.[a.1).0) Adding to stack: <22605> item((i.[#.1.0.2.2.2.[b.0. finalposition) The stack operation is represented as follows: “il” is a push rule of the stack index “i” and “ir” is a pop rule. b. where P is: S → aSd.2.ir].[a].[b.[].[#.1) 8 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.[].B.d].2).d].[#.Adding to chart: <23599> item(S.Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.3.[i.d].4.[c].[].4.[S.0. G2 = ({S.d]. P.[a.1) 9 Adding to chart: <10640> item(S.3.0.[b].1.0)) 4 Adding to chart: <10771> item(S.[B].ir].2) Adding to stack: <22863> item((i.ir].[B].[a.1)) 7 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.3) 18.0.[b.3.3.[#.(i.1. Each item is represented as follows: item(LeftSymbol.(i.Adding to chart: <27671> item(S. #.[i.2.[i.d].[i. Adding to chart: <26897> item(B.

0. In other words. R → a • . R → Rb | b ¯ j The following derivation is not possible (in particular step 4). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Adding to chart: <22956> item(B. 0).6) 23.[#.0) S ⇒ (x.[]. Adding to chart: <23215> item(S.[c]. S → bS • . 0). R → Ra | a ¯ i 5. S → aS i 2.1.0.[#.e].a].2.[].[S.3.[B]. b}∗ }. Adding to chart: <10883> item(S.0.0.[#.[].[d. the following complete operation would be performed : Given [(#. The pairs in parenthesis represent the nodes of the graph-structured stack: (#.a].3) aabR⇒(i.?) aaba i i ¯ i ¯ j 1 2 3 4 However.[B.a]. (#. 3. S → R • .8) 28.b].[d].1.[b]. Adding to chart: <23342> item(S. In the following example the square brackets represent substrings to be recognized. the completer operation may jump up two steps and complete the “R” introduced after step 3.S.0. S → • R. 0).[#.[c].4. 3] ∈ S 4 and [(j.4. Adding to chart: <10754> item(S.1.[#.S.7) 27.e]. 3.0.0.[#.[d]. 2].[].b].7) 26.6) 25.0.[S].2.b].0. 3).1) aS ⇒ (i.il].2)aabR[b]⇒ i i j ¯ j ¯ i 1 2 3 4 5 (i. Adding to chart: <23085> item(B.6) 24.ir].8) yes The following example shows why some bookkeeping of the order of the derivation is required in Earley items.[c.[d. Consider the language Lww = {ww |w ∈ {a. Adding to chart: <10982> item(<start>.[#.3. 6. 3] to S 4 Then the following are sequentially added to S 4 : a) [(#.2) aaR⇒ (i.[].3. This bookkeeping is performed here by the order parameter. 2.3.5) 22.1)aabR[a][b]⇒(#. Adding to chart: <27783> item(B.1).[S.[#.ir]. the corresponding productions of the grammar Gww repeated below and the string aaba 1.[#. 3] ∈ S 3 : ¯ j add [(#.il].ir]. aaRa ⇒ (?.B.5) 21. j .0) S ⇒ (i.0.4) 20. S → R 4.0.2.56 19 CHAPTER 5. the following sequences can be generated using Earley’s Algorithm if no ordering constraint is enforced at the Completer Operation.0.ir].0.[].3) aabS ⇒(j .2.2) aaS ⇒(i.[c.2.[#.il].il].0)aaba[a][b] ¯ i 6 After recognized this substring.0.a]. S → bS j 3.2.1) aS ⇒ (i. Adding to chart: <10625> item(S. Adding to chart: <27654> item(B.2) aaS ⇒ (j . instead of the one introduced at step 5.1.

S → aS • . the complete operation of the previous algorithm does not specify the correct constraints. i 57 c) [(#. The predict-complete ambiguity In this case. S → aS • . It cannot handle cases of what we call predict-complete ambiguity.2. R → bRd ¯ j Grammar Gamb4 produces the following derivation: S ⇒ i#aSd ⇒ ji#aaScd ⇒ ji#aaRcd ⇒ i#aabRdcd ⇒ #aabbcdcd But it does not generate the string aabbcddc nor aabbdccd. The exact prediction path that led to the current configuration has to be transversed back in the complete steps. At this point. In other words. 0] i 5. {a. j}.5. b. 2]. d}. c. there is no way to control the correct derivation given no information on the pop moves has been stored.2: Push and Pop moves on the same spine The following grammar produces alternative derivations which illustrate this issue. 4. 0). and at completer cases. 1. S → aSd i 2. R → [(#. 0). P ) where P is: 1.2. . S → aSc j 3. 4. S → R 7. push push pop pop Figure 5. This is depicted in the following figure 5. 2] and b d. R → • ∗ • b c. R → bRc ¯ i 5. R}. The ambiguity arises in the following configuration S ⇒ aabR which would lead to the following items: [(#. Example 19 Gamb4 = ({S. 2). complete steps have to check that there is a corresponding pop-move item that has been completed for every item produced at a reduced push move. #.2. R → bd ¯ j 4. completed-stack ambiguity and stack-position ambiguity. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM b) [(#. 2). R → bc ¯ i 6. {i.3 Refining the Earley Algorithm for GIGs The Algorithm presented in the preceding section does not specify all the necessary constraints. 1]. S. 0. at some predict steps.

58

CHAPTER 5. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ A solution is to extend the graph-structured stack to include I nodes. Whenever a push item is

being completed it has to be matched against the complement node on the stack. The existence of ¯ a corresponding I node stored in the stack has to be checked whenever an item with a reduced push ¯ node is completed. The following figure 5.11 depicts a graph that includes I nodes (pop nodes). It also shows some additional edges (the dashed edges) that depict the corresponding active nodes in the I domain. We will discuss this issue again in the next subsection.

i,1 $,0 j,1

i,2

i,3

i,3

i,2

j,2

j,3

j,3

j,2

j,1

Figure 5.3: A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes i

Completed stack ambiguity The graph-structured stack we presented so far is built at prediction steps and no additional computation is performed on the graph at completion steps. Therefore there is no way to represent the difference between a configuration like the one depicted in figure 5.2 and the one we present in figure 5.4.

A
push

B
pop

Figure 5.4: Push and Pop moves on different spines Such a difference is relevant for a grammar like Gamb5 Example 20 Gamb5 = ({S, A, R, B}, {a, b, c, d, e}, {i, j}, S, #, P ) where P is: S→AB A→R A → aAb |ab
i

R → aRd |ad
j

B → cBd |cd
¯ i

B → cBe |ce
¯ j

5.2. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM

59

Grammar Gamb5 generates the string aadbccde but it does not generate the string aadbcced. If we consider the recognition of the string aaaddbccdde, it will generate the following stack nodes for the derivation A ⇒ aaaddb: a(i, j, 1)a(i, j, 2)a(i, j, 3)d(→ j, 3)d(→ j, 2)b(→ i, 1). The notation (i, j, 1) indicates that two nodes (i, 1) and (j, 1) where created at position a1 , and (→ j, 3) indicates that the node (j, 3) was completed at the position d4 . Consequently only the nodes (j, 3), (j, 2) and (i, 1) are completed at the derivation point S ⇒ aaaddbB. The edges depicted in figure 5.5 are all valid at position 3 (i.e accessible from the item [∆, 3, R → aaa • d, 3] in S 3 ). However they would be still valid at position 6: [∆, 3, B → α • d, 6] in S 6
i,1 $,0 j,1 j,2 j,3 i,2 i,3
∗ ∗

Figure 5.5: A predict time graph Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between prediction and complete stages. We need to introduce a new edge, a completion edge. The arrows in figure 5.6 are intended to designate this completion edge. They also indicate that there is a different kind of path between nodes. So, the simple lines indicate that there was a potential edge at the prediction step. Only those paths with additional arrows were confirmed at a complete step.
i,1 $,0 j,1 j,2 j,3 i,2 i,3

Figure 5.6: A complete steps in the graph

Stack position Ambiguity Two (or more) different stacks might have the same active nodes available at the same position. However those alternative stacks might correspond to alternative derivations. This issue is illustrated by the two stacks represented in figure 5.7.

60

CHAPTER 5. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS

i,1 $,0 j,1

i,2

i,3

i,1 $,0

i,2

i,3

j,2

j,3

j,1

j,2

j,3

Figure 5.7: Two alternative graph-structured stacks

The alternative graph-structured stacks depicted in figure 5.7 might be generated at different positions, e.g. in the following alternative spines as illustrated in the following figure 5.8.

push pop

Figure 5.8: Ambiguity on different spines Notice that although these stacks have the same active nodes, they do differ in the nodes that can be reached from those active nodes. They even might be continued by the same pop complement part of the graph. It must be noticed that the active nodes from the graph structures in figure 5.8 are indistinguishable from each other. Some information must be added to make sure that they point to active nodes in different graphs. The information that will enable to distinguish the corresponding nodes in the graph will be the position in which the push nodes are generated. This information replaces the order parameter that was used in the preliminary version of the algorithm. In this case the graph structured stack will be more like the one that is proposed in Tomita’s algorithm, in the sense that there is not an unambiguous length of the stack at each node.
i,5 $,0 $,0 j,1 j,2 j,3 j,4 j,5 j,8 i,6 i,7

i,1

i,2

i,3

Figure 5.9: Two alternative graph-structured stacks distinguished by position

for a node at position pi there might be pi−1 edges to other nodes. p < 0. PushC(currentnode. and pi > pj . as is specified in algorithm 5 and depicted in figure 5. pi ). The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. ∆j = (δ j . Therefore ∆+ will designate a node corresponding to a pop move which ¯ “removes” ∆+ .10. It also creates an i-edge from initialnode to newnode. It is a pair (δ.5. We will use also the complement notation to designate the ¯ corresponding complements. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 61 5. It retrieves all the nodes in I that are connected by an edge to the push node that currentnode reduces.2. . after a reduce operation has been done. oldnode. We say ∆− ∈ I. These edges will be represented then by triples: (newnode. We say ∆+ ∈ I.4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: final version Revised Operations on the stack We will use the following notation. A node ∆− designates a node corresponding to a pop move in the stack. initialnode). These operations enable the computation of the Dyck language over the graph-structured stack. pj ).e. This operation is the equivalent of the previous Pop function with a stack ¯ that keeps record of the nodes in I. A node can connect to any node at a preceding position. We say ∆i > ∆j if ∆i = (δ i . Push(newnode. the path function obtains the nodes in I which can be active. It is a pair (δ. i. Therefore. Note that the position is determined by the corresponding position of the terminal introduced by the push production. p) such ¯ ¯ that δ ∈ I. The modifications are ¯ necessary due to the fact that the graph-structured stack contains both nodes in I and I. We will use a slightly more complicated version that takes into account completed nodes and the initial nodes introduced by the Push operation. A node ∆+ designates a node corresponding to a push move on the stack.oldactivnode. Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the position of the current node. p) such that δ is an index and p > 0 (p s are integers). Path(currentnode).initialnode). Creates a complete edge from currentnode to precednode if necessary. precednode).2. On the other hand ∆− will designate a push node which has been removed by ∆− . It finds the preceding unreduced push node after one or more reductions have been performed. We will discuss it again below.

and ∆ − 1 . 2 j.2 i.62 Algorithm 3 . ∆ − 3 ∈ I. Path2 performs them at complete time. ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset S S i. −2 S S S S S Figure 5.3 j.3 j. 2 j. −3 j. The portion of the graph that is already reduced corresponds to completed nodeswhich already matched their respective complements.1 $.0 i. ∆ + 2 ∈ I 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edge((∆ − 1.1 j. −2 j.10: Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes i The following operation operates on the reverse direction of the Path function. ∆ + 2 ) add ∆ + 2 to valueset ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 .1 j. The returned set of nodes represent points in the derivation at which to continue performing reductions at complete time. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . Path2 returns a set of nodes in I accessible from another node in I. . −2 i.3 i. Path(∆ − 1 ): CHAPTER 5.2 i. While Path performs them at predict time.−3 i. named edgeC.3 i. −1 j. Completed nodes are designated by a particular kind of edge.1 $. Path obtains the closest non reduced nodes ¯ ¯ in I.0 j. −1 j. −2 j. −3 i. Both Path and Path2 perform Dyck language reductions on the graph structured stack.−3 i.

A → α • aβ.2. -1 j. ∆In .e. p) (∆) in the stack. negative integers and zero respectively. -2 j. -1 j. defined as follows: cl(δ) = cδ for any δ ∈ DI ∆cl represents a node (cl(δ). -2 j. ∆ − 1 ∈ I) and : ∆2 ∈ I ∪ {#} 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edgeC((∆ − 1. DI = I ∪ I ∪ {#}). ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset c c S 63 $.5. -3 Figure 5. will be denoted by DI (i. 2 j. p) such that δ ∈ I.3 j. p < 0. . Path2(∆ − 1 ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . but inherit the last generated node.3 j. ∆2 ) add ∆2 to valueset ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 .1 j.0 j. A node ∆cl (or cl(∆)) is a pointer (cl(δ).1 j. The empty stack is then represented by the node (#. p) such that δ ∈ I. We use a substitution mapping cl from DI into DI ∪ {c}∗ . [∆Ac . 2 j. Two parameters represent the portion of the stack: the current active node ∆Ac and the initial node ∆In . The vocabulary corresponding to the set of indices (I). GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 4 . We ¯ ¯ say a node ∆− is in I if it designates a pair (delta. ∆ − 3 ∈ I. -3 S S paths $. p > 0. and positive.0 j. We say a node ∆+ is in I if it designates a pair (δ. 0). j] ∈ S i ¯ Nodes are represented by pairs of elements in I ∪ I ∪ {#}. We refer to these as transmitted nodes. We need also to represent those constituents that did not generate a node of their own ( a push or pop derivation). p) such that δ ∈ DI and p is an integer. their ¯ ¯ complements (I) and the empty stack symbol (#). p) to the node (δ.11: A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes i New Earley items for GIGs Earley items have to be modified to represent the portion of the non reduced graph-stack corresponding to a recognized constituent.

B I−edge α push or pop edge A Figure 5. StorePath(∆ − 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ¯ If ∆ − 1 = ∆R : ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 . ∆R ) to Pathset . ∆ + 2 .64 CHAPTER 5. by the following Push function. ∆R2 ) to Pathset ¯ else if ∆ − 1 > ∆R ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 .initialnode). ∆R2 ) add Path(∆ − 1 ∆ − 3 . ∆R2 ) add Path(∆ − 1 . ∆ − 3 ) and For Path(∆ − 3 . I the set of indices. ∆R ) to Pathset ¯ For edgeC (∆−1 . Algorithm 5 . ∆R2 ) to Pathset ¯ For edge(∆−1 . Notice that an I-edge can be identical to a push or pop edge.12: I-edges Now that we have introduced I − edges we present a second version of the path computation that takes into account I − edges (here ∆R ) as boundary points to define a path. These edges will be introduced in the predict operation.12. I-edges are depicted in figure 5. ∆ + 2 . and ∆ − 1 . ∆ + 2 . ∆ − 3 ∈ I. ∆R2 ∈ I ∪ I. ∆ + 2 . therefore we will call them I-edges. ∆ − 3 ) For Path (∆ − 3 . ∆ + 2 ∈ I.oldactivnode. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS As we mentioned when we introduced the Push operation Push(newnode. ∆ + 2 . It also takes into account the difference between nodes corresponding to completed constituents (lines 7-12) and nodes corresponding to incomplete constituents (lines 1-6). ∆R . The interpretation of these edge is that there is a path connecting the two ∆In nodes. ∆ + 2 . ∆R ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . ∆ − 3 . ∆R 2) add Path(∆ − 1 . ∆ + 2 ) such that ∆ + 2 ≥ ∆R add Path(∆ − 1 . we will make use of an additional type of edge. This kind of edge relates ∆In nodes.

[δ] .. S → • S$. In the pop case there are two subcases (1. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 6 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) . 0] 2 For 0 ≤ i ≤ n do: Process each item s ∈ S i in order performing one of the following: a) Predictor b) Completer c) Scanner 3 4 If S i+1 is empty. If i = n and Sn+1 = {[(#. Let G = (N. p) such that −n ≤ p ≤ n. #.5.2. P ) be a GIG. 0). scanner. to retrieve the active nodes in I. S → S$ • . completer used in the For loop in 2 are modified as follows to perform the corresponding operations on the graph-structured stack: as we said. Reject. 0). In the second case. T. Ac(δ 1 . (#. p0 ) designates an item initial node.a): ¯ the active node in the triggering item is in I or (1. 0). pop or e-move). Prediction and Scanner Operations Prediction Operations will be divided in different subcases. 0).. S. 0). Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#.an in which the index δ + in I was introduced. 0). n ≥ 0. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string. the function path is used. (#. I. δ ∈ DI and the absolute value of p (abs(p)) refers to the position in w = a1 . 0]} then accept 65 The structure of the main loop of Earley’s algorithm remains unchanged except for the requirement that the initial item at S 0 (line 1) and the accepting item at S n + 1 (line 4) have an empty stack Active and Initial node: (#. The operations predictor. we represent nodes in the graph-structured stack with pairs (δ ± .2. p1 ) designates an item active node (∆Ac ) and I(δ 0 . These subcases are constrained by the type of production applied (push.b) where the active node is in I. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. This is also required for productions ¯ that check the top of the stack: (A → γ) when the triggering item Active node is in I.2. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#.

p0 ). (δ 0 . i] to S i ¯ such that: (δ 3 . p0 ). p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . p2 ). i] to S i such that: p2 = i + 1. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS If [Ac(δ 1 .66 1. p1 ). ¯ such that: δ 2 = δ 1 and p2 = −p1 (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and ¯ δ 2 ∈ I = δ¯ : 1 add every [Ac(δ 2 . Scanner If [∆Ac . p0 ). p0 ). I(δ 0 . p1 ). p1 ). p2 ). p2 ). I(δ 0 . A → • γ. I(δ 0 . B → α • Aβ. p2 ) ∈ path(δ 1 . (δ 3 . p1 ). p2 ). A → • γ. pr )) 1. p3 ).2. i] to S i and push( (δ 2 . (δ 0 . p1 ).1 Predictor Push CHAPTER 5. p0 )) ¯ 1. j] ∈ S i δ= and (A → γ) ∈ P such that δ ¯ or δ = [δ 1 ] or (δ 2 . (δ 0 . and push( (δ 2 . p2 ). B → α • Aβ. A → • γ. B → α • Aβ.3 Predictor e-move If [Ac(δ 1 . i] to S i 2. pr )) and δ 2 = δ 3 and p3 = −p2 and push( (δ 2 . p1 ). I(δ 2 . A → • γ. δ 2 ∈ I: δ2 add every [Ac(δ 2 . δ r . p1 ). j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P and δ 1 . All the completer operations . p2 ). (δ 1 .b Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I ¯ If [Ac(δ 1 . B → α • Aβ. p0 ) ) 1. I(δ 0 . (δ r . ∆In . A → αa • β. δ 1 ∈ I and δ 2 = δ add every [Ac(δ 1 . (δ 1 . (δ 0 . I(cl(δ 0 ). (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and δ 2 ∈ I: add every [Ac(δ 2 . j] ∈ S i . ∆In . p1 ). p1 ). p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . I(δ 2 . A → α • aβ. p3 ) ∈ path((δ 1 . (δ 1 .a Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I If [Ac(δ 1 . p2 ).2. p0 ). j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [∆A . I(δ 2 . j] to S i + 1 Completer Operations The different subcases of Completer operations are motivated by the contents of the Active Node ∆Ac and the Initial Node ∆In in the triggering completed item (item in S i ) and also by the contents of the Initial Node ∆I0 of the combination target item (item in S j ). p2 ). p2 ). p2 ). p2 ). j] ∈ S i . p1 ).

∆I0 ) (where the omitted element is the active node ∆Ac of the combination target). p2 ) such that δ ∈ I ∪ {#} and 0 ≤ p2 ≤ n). j] ∈ S i : for edge((δ 3 . The first completer subcase involves a combination item in S j that had been generated by an e-production. the initial node ∆In is inherited by the result item. The idea is to be able to compute whether a tree has a valid stack (i.e ∆Ac = (δ 2 .2.5. p0 )) and for [Ac1(δ 0 .b combines a completed triggering item generated by a push production (using the prediction operation 1. .a Completer A. and the active node has to contain its inverse. We use the symbol ‘ ’ hereafter to indicate that the information stored in the corresponding field is not required in the computation. p3 ).e. Therefore if the information is stored in a three dimension table. This is the reverse of predictor 1. k] to S i Subcase 3. No further constraints are checked. A completion edge is introduced recording the fact that this push node ∆In has been completed. This is the equivalent of a production S → aS¯ for a Dyck language over the alphabet {a. A → α • Bβ. ¯ 3. ie. (derived by Predictor 1. we need to check also whether the stack associated ¯ with each subtree is a proper substring of the Dyck language over I ∪ I. The result item preserves the active node from the triggering item and the initial node from the combination target item.3 e-move) and therefore its initial node is a transmitted node. ( . I(δ 3 . As a result of the combination. Combination with an e-move item: δ 0 ∈ cl(I ∪ I) If [Ac(δ 2 . k] ∈ S j such that: ¯ δ 0 ∈ cl(I ∪ I) add [Ac(δ 2 . . the transmitted nodes are consumed. it means that only two dimensions are being used. 3 Use the standard terminology concerning Dyck languages as found for instance in [39]. p2 ). p0 ). the initial node ∆In is in I. therefore. a}. For a subtree to be in the Dyck language over DI is as follows: the initial node has to contain the node for the first index introduced in the derivation. However.1). a stack that is in the ¯ Dyck3 language of the indices and its complements (I ∪ I)). These edges are of the form (∆In . The active node ∆Ac is also in I or it is the empty stack (i. At this step. (δ 0 . GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 67 check properties of the combination target item in S j against edges that relate its the initial node ∆I0 to the initial node of the completed triggering item ∆In . p3 ). If a subtree is in the Dyck language over a ¯ DI. I(δ 3 . ∆I0 = (cl(δ). a reduction can be performed. p0 ) I(δ 0 .3. p). p2 ). . The constraint that there is an I-edge between ∆In and ∆I0 is checked. ). A → αB • β. B → γ • . p3 ).

p3 ). I(δ 0 . and (p2 > −1) : for edge((δ 3 . k] to S i and such that I_0 − + I_0 I−edge + − I_3 + push edge + Ac_2 + Ac_2 + Figure 5. p2 ) such that δ 2 ∈ I and −n ≤ p2 < 0). p3 ). p3 ). B → γ • . p2 ). The first is −p2 < pI .13: Completer A 3. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS I_3 I−edge edge I_3 Ac_2 + Ac_2 + − − Figure 5. (δ 0 . ). ( . A → αB • β.68 I_0: e−move CHAPTER 5. ∆In ∈ I. I(δ 0 . The existence of an edge between ∆In and ∆I0 is checked as in the previous cases. In other words the active node ∆Ac is a closing parenthesis of the Dyck language that has not yet exceeded its opening parenthesis. j] ∈ S i δ 3 ∈ I.c also combines a triggering item generated by a push production. δ 2 ∈ I ∪ {#}. δ 0 . In this case ¯ ¯ the active node ∆Ac is in I (i.b Completer B: Push with Active Node in I ∪ {#}. I(δ 3 . p0 )) such that: ¯ δ 0 ∈ I ∪ I. k] ∈ S j pushC( (δ 3 . p0 ). A → α • Bβ. add [Ac(δ 2 . It should be noted that the string position in which an index in I is introduced constrains the possible orderings of the control . p2 ). p0 ).e ∆Ac = (δ 2 . There are two additional constraints. (p2 > −1) If [Ac(δ 2 .14: Completer B Subcase 3. p0 )) and for [ .

5. do not constitute a j valid stack configuration for a subtree. j] ∈ S i for edge((δ 3 .)Ac ] ¯ ¯ The result item preserves the active node from the triggering item and the initial node from the combination item. ¯ ∆In ∈ I... ( )) I_0 + − I_0 I−edge (d_1. ( . A → α • Bβ. ∆Ac is the matching parenthesis of ∆In . δ 0 .[(I0 .. A → αB • β. I(δ 0 . But there is a ¯ different constraint: ∆Ac = ∆In .(I . p2 ). k] to S i such that ¯ δ 3 ∈ I.. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 69 language elements. i.. ).. p0 )) and ¯ for [ .. This constraint then expresses the fact that (Ac is outside the square brackets. p_3) (d_1.d is the last case that combines a completed item generated by a push production. In other words: .c Completer C: Push with Active Node in I. ¯ 3. )In . p0 ). The substring of the Dyck language that corresponds to the completed subtree is indicated by the square brackets. add [Ac(δ 2 . For instance..... p3 ). I(δ 0 . (p2 < 0) and ¯ −p2 < p3 there is a completed edge((δ 3 .(In . because ∆Ac should have met the corresponding matching Dyck element and a reduction should have been performed. ¯ (Ac .. p3 ).. and −p2 < p3 If [Ac(δ 2 .p_1) + − I_3 + push edge mirror push/pop (d_3.)Ac ] ¯ The second constraint requires that ∆In has to have a matching closing parenthesis.. Following the preceding example )¯ has to be inside the square I brackets: (Ac .−p_1) A_2 − A_2 − Figure 5. so the node ¯ ∆In has to have been completed. two nodes ∆In = (i..e..[(I0 . 2) and ∆Ac = (¯ − 3). p2 ). −p3 ). (p2 < 0). I(δ 3 .c). B → γ • . p0 ).2..15: Completer C Subcase 3. k] ∈ S j such that: δ 0 ∈ I ∪ I. In this case the active node ∆Ac is also in I ( like in subcase 3. δ 2 ∈ I.

d Completer D: Push with Active Node in I. ¯ ¯ 3. This is the base configuration to perform a Dyck reduction. This option is similar to the previous one. p1 ). i. p3 ). and checked to verify that they satisfy the control properties required by the case 3. k] ∈ S j such that: δ 0 ∈ I ∪ I. (δ 0 . add [Ac(δ 1 . which is ∆Ac1 . I(δ 3 . (δ 1 . j] ∈ S i ¯ −p2 = p3 and δ 2 = δ 3 for edge((δ 3 . A node preceding the active node (∆Ac1 ) of the target item (δ 1 .e corresponds to edges (∆In . (δ 1 . k] to S i I_0 such that ¯ δ 3 ∈ I. p0 ). the only difference is that ∆Ac was not completed yet at this stage (the path2 function requires completed nodes). p5 ) ∈ path2(δ 2 . there ¯ ¯ is an edge ((δ 2 . A → α • Bβ. p2 ). p0 ). ¯ Subcase 3. I(δ 0 . (p2 < 0). p1 ).p_1) I_3 + push edge Ac1: (d_1. p1 ). δ 2 ∈ I. B → γ • . ).( p2 < 0). p1 ). p5 . product of the reduction. −p0 . A → αB • β.e. p3 ).d. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ (δ 2 . In other words. + − i−edge Ac1: (d_1. (δ 0 .16: Completer D The following Completer cases involve completed triggering items generated by pop productions. p2 ) = (δ 3 .70 CHAPTER 5. becomes the updated Active node of . p1 )(δ 5 .p_1) I_0 + − reduced path Ac_2 = I_3 Ac_2 − Figure 5. and ∆Ac = ∆I If [Ac(δ 2 . Therefore the whole stack of the completed triggering item can be reduced and the active node of the result is updated to a node that precedes ∆In in the stack. −p3 ) such that δ I ∈ I and 0 < p3 ≤ n. The Active Node of the result item are updated. p0 )) and ¯ for [Ac(δ 1 . I(δ 0 . )). −p2 ). ∆I0 ) where ∆In = ∆Ac1 . The alternatives for performing a Dyck reduction on the graph are three: a) The reduction is performed by the path2 function: choose (δ 5 . ∆Ac1 . c) The completed item initial node and active node are equal (∆In = ∆Ac ). p2 ) b) The reduction is performed by a single edge from the complement of the Active Node (∆Ac ) to a matching node of the initial node in the target combination item ∆I0 .

δ 1 ∈ I. p3 ). p1 ). B → γ • . Part of this constraint might be specified in the Completer Case G. k] ∈ S j such that ¯ If p1 > p0 . δ 0 ∈ I and p2 > p3 4 There ¯ is a complete path of I elements that reaches the one that complements δ 0 . GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM the result. p2 < 0 : Compute path2 (δ 2 .f considers the combination of a pop item with a push item and checks the properties of the Active Node (∆Ac ) to verify that it satisfies the control properties required in 3. This case is relevant for the language Lgenabc edge to itself.5. and −p2 > p0 and (δ 5 . A → αB • β. k] to S i I_0 5 71 + − i−edge Ac_1 I_0 (d_4. (∆Ac− ).p_4) + − I_3=A_2 Ac_2 − Figure 5. p0 ). j] ∈ S i such that δ 2 δ 3 ∈ I. last case Subcase 3. I(δ 0 . ). (δ 1 . p3 . alternatively. p0 )) where ¯ δ 3 = δ 1 . −p0 )4 ¯ ¯ else if −p2 > p0 and there is an edge (δ¯ . and (δ 5 . 5δ ¯2 6 An was introduced after δ 0 was reduced. I(δ 3 . p3 = −p1 . p1 ). p2 ) for edge((δ 3 . p5 ). in other words ∆Ac > ∆In .p_4) path + − + pop edge reduced graph Ac: (d_4. or exceeds it. −p0 . and (δ 5 . 3. −p0 ) 2 else if p2 = p3 . p5 ) ≥ (δ 0 .f Completer F.e Completer E.17: Completer E. the Active Node is positive (∆Ac+ ). A → α • Bβ. Pop items with Push items: p0 > 0. −p2 ). p3 ). for [Ac(δ 1 . p0 ). which has not yet exceeded the position of its opening parenthesis. These two alternatives are allowed by p2 > p3 . (δ 0 . p5 ) ∈ path2(δ 2 . p2 ). p1 )(δ 5 . ) add [Ac(δ 5 . . p5 ). Either the Active Node is a closing parenthesis.c.2. I(δ 0 . (δ 0 .6 3. Pop items with Push items and graph reduction ¯ If [Ac(δ 2 . p2 ). ∆In ). The information that ∆In was completed is stored by the completed edge (∆In . p5 ) = (δ 0 . δ 0 ∈ I and p0 > 0.δ 2 = δ 3 for edge(δ 1 . The Active node ∆Ac is updated according to the performed reduction.

). p3 ). j] ∈ S i : for [Ac(δ 2 . 7 Here we could state the constraint p2 > p0 .72 CHAPTER 5. p3 )( ) I_0 + I_0 i−edge + I_3 − pop edge Ac_2 > I_3 Ac_2 + Ac_2 + − − Figure 5. A → α • Bβ. A → α • Bβ. Therefore the target item has to have the same contents in the Initial and Active node as the completed item. p2 ). k] to S i pushC edge (δ 3 . p2 ). Subcase 3. I(cl(δ 3 ). I(δ 3 . p2 ). k] ∈ S j add [Ac(δ 2 .g Completer G Pop items combine with Pop items7 ¯ If [Ac(δ 2 . p3 ). or compute a graph reduction if the condition is not met. ( . A → αB • β.18: Completer F The following subcases complete the remaining alternatives. 3. p3 ). k] to S i The following table summarizes the different Completer cases. A → αB • β. ( . k] to S i and pushC edge (δ 3 . Subcase 3. k] ∈ S j : add [Ac(δ 2 . j] ∈ S i such that δ 3 ∈ I. p0 ). p3 ). A → α • Bβ. p0 )). (δ 0 . ¯ for edge((δ 3 . p0 ). Completer H e-move If [Ac(δ 2 . ). p0 ). p3 )( ) 3. B → γ • . (δ 3 . (δ 3 . δ 0 ∈ I for [ .h combine completed items generated by the 1. p2 ). p3 ). p2 ). I(δ 0 . .3 predictor. j] ∈ S i : such that p2 > p3 for edge((δ 2 . I(δ 0 . k] ∈ S j add [Ac(δ 2 . B → γ • . I(δ 0 . p0 )) for [ . I(δ 3 . A → αB • β. p2 ). B → γ • . (δ 0 . p2 ). p0 ). p2 ). p3 ). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS If [Ac(δ 2 . I(δ 0 .g combines completed items generated by pop productions with target items also generated by pop productions.

. might require O(i2 ). . Scanner. It has a maximum of n iterations where n is the length of the input. p2 ). For each active node there might be at most i edges. p1 ).3 5. p1 . j] where: 0 ≤ j.1 Complexity Analysis Overview The algorithm presented above has one sequential iteration (a for loop).∆Ac + + +/-. which may have O(i) active nodes. p2 .5.(∆A = ∆I ) +/. ∆I0 ) ¯ check for ∆In reduce: ∆A ← ∆In − 1 reduce with path2 pushC(∆In . −) 5. Predictor e-move and Predictor Push operations on an item each require constant time. −) pushC(∆In . ≤ i Thus there might be at most O(i3 ) items in each set S i . I(δ 2 . COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS I_0 73 − I_0 i−edge − I_3 Ac_2 − Ac_2 − Figure 5. Predictor pop.3.(∆A > ∆In ) +/ +/TARGET ITEM transmitted +/+/+/+/.19: Completer G Summary of Completer Cases CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM +/+ + + transmitted ACTIVE NODE +/+ ¯ . therefore the pop procedure might take time O(i2 ) for each set S i . transmitted Specific Actions ∆I 0 ← ∆In pushC(∆In . A → α • Bβ. Each item in S i has the form: [Ac(δ 1 .3.

k] ∈ S j (i = j). {a.S → aSd i 2. while the indexing is so to speak.B → b 9. p2 ). d}. #. P ) where P is : 1. provided the information in the node Ac1(δ 1 . {i. We consider in detail each subcase of the Completer in the next subsection. only one indexing alternative can apply at each step in the derivation. i. then the complexity of this operation for each state set is O(i5 ). S. i. A → α • Bβ.B → b ¯ i 5. [Ac(δ. p3 . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS The computation of the Path function might require O(n3 ) also.e. C → c L(Gam2 ) = {a b c d |n. where: 0 ≤ j.C → cC 10. It can be observed that this algorithm keeps a CFG (O(n3 )) complexity if the values of p1 and p2 are dependent on i. {a. only two dimensions are taken into account from the three dimensional table where i-edges and edges are stored. ≤ j such that there is an i−edge((δ 3 .74 CHAPTER 5. k. p2 ). C → cC ¯ i 6. B. S. k ≥ 1.B → bB n k m n 8. There are S n iterations then the time bound on the entire 1-4 steps of the algorithm is O(n6 ). p0 ).B → bB ¯ i 4. O(i) and the complexity of the algorithm is O(n3 ). also in S j .. I(δ 2 . Given that there are at most O(i3 ) items in each set. if for each item there is only one value for p1 and p2 for each i. The Completer Operations (3. m + k ≥ n} . the ambiguity resides in the CFG backbone. where 0 ≤ j ≤ i Languages that have this property will be called constant indexing languages. This is true even for some ambiguous grammars such as the following: Gamb = ({S.h ) can combine an item from S i : [Ac(δ 2 . m. p1 ). (δ 0 . C}. In other words. p2 . This is in general the case except for some restricted cases in which the node ∆Ac1 is bound to the node ∆In and therefore does not increase the combinatorial possibilities.a to 3. m ≥ 1} ∪ {a b c d |n. c. #. j] where: 0 ≤ j. C. A → α • Bβ. ≤ i with at most all [ . In such cases the number of items in each set Si is proportional to i. {i. The required time for each iteration (S i ) is thus O(i5 ). B. m ≥ 1} In this case. B → α • γ. P ) where P is S → aSd i S → BC S → DE n m n n B → bB ¯ i B→b ¯ i C → cC E → cE ¯ i C→c E→c ¯ i D → bD D→b n n m n L(Gamb ) = {a b c d |n. }. p1 ) is not taken into account in the combination. This is a general analysis.e. Once the CF backbone chooses either the “BC” path or the “DE” path of the derivation. E}.. }.C → c ¯ i 7. d}. D. p3 ). b.S → BC 3. I(δ 3 . pj ]. c. p3 ). b. A different case of ambiguity is Gamb2 = ({S. deterministic. p0 . p0 )). There are at most O(j 2 ) such possible combinations. I0(δ 0 .

TAGs. The size of the grammar designated by |G| corresponds to the number of rules and the number of non-terminals. Usually. S. This will allow to compare what is the impact of the indexing mechanism as an independent multiplicative factor. 7 and 8 would be bounded by the square of the number of b’s scanned so far. }. C}.2 Time and Space Complexity In this subsection we compute the time and space complexities in terms of the length of the input sentence (n) and the size of the grammar. push. P ) would produce items proportional to i in each set S i : S → aSd i S → BC B → bB ¯ i B→ C → cC ¯ i C→ L(Gam3 ) = {an bk cm dn |n ≥ 1. COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS 75 In this case (where the ambiguity is between a pop and an epsilon-move the number of items corresponding to the rules 3. b. There are no mathematical average case results. Complexity results concerning formalisms related to Natural Language (including CFLs) mostly are worst case results (upper bounds) and they do establish polynomial parsing of these grammars. d}. Unambiguous indexing should be understood as those grammars that produce for each string in the language a unique indexing derivation. or pop) through the same derivation CF path and b) a different index value used in the same type of stack operation. most algorithms for CFGs. The properties of Earley’s algorithm for CFGs remain unchanged. m + k = n} Therefore. the sources of increase in the time complexity are a) ambiguity between mode of operation in the stack ( . 4. m.3. and other grammar formalisms run much better than the worst case. O(n2 ) for unambiguous context free back-bone grammars with unambiguous indexing and O(n) for bounded-state8 context free back-bone grammars with unambiguous indexing. #. the real limiting factor in practice is the size of the grammar. B. c. In practice. 8 Context Free grammars where the set of items in each state set is bounded by a constant. The expensive one is the first case. {a. the similar grammar Gamb3 = ({S.3. O(n3 ) holds for grammars with constant or unambiguous indexing. All average case results reported are empirical. {i. . we keep separate the size of the context-free backbone and the indexing mechanism. k ≥ 0. There is an important multiplicative factor on the complexity computed in terms of the input size which depends on the size of the grammar (see [6]). 5. In the analysis we present here. However.5. so the following results hold: O(n6 ) is the worst case.

∆I0 . There is still the need to check for duplicates of the grammar rules. ∆In . Given there are two stack possible values (∆Ac and ∆In ). A → α • Bβ. k are bounded by n. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Analysis of Scan. It checks the current word (input aj ) against the terminal a expected by the scanner. i] to S i A grammar rule is added to the state set. j] ∈ S i : for every i-edge (∆In . We consider now the more simple cases of the Completer operation which have the following shape. The push (1. A → α • aβ. It depends on k and p0 : O(|I| · |G| · n2 ). ∆In . ∆3 . ∆I0 ) and item: for [ . p2 ). no recalculation of ∆Ac (No reduction involved) If [∆Ac . The computation of the path in Predictor takes at most O(n3 ) for each vertex. A → αB • β. the complexity of the predictor operation is: O(|I|2 · |G| · n4 ). Complete The scanner operation requires constant time. The same grammar rules may apply at most n2 times (if it is a pop rule): there might be O(I ·n) possible values for Ac(δ 1 . C. Completer Case 1. A → αa • β. There might be O(I · ∆In − 1) possible values for each edge and ∆In . B → α • Aβ. ∆In . Predict. B → γ • .2) and predictor 1. The same grammar rule may have different values for δ.3 operations take constant time regarding the input size. j] to S i + 1 Predictor operations have in general the following shape. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [∆A . there are at most O(|I| · n) edges in a path and we consider edges to two vertices: the active node and the initial node. and for each value there might be O(I · n) path values. ∆0 . k] ∈ S j add [∆Ac . p1 ). k] to S i The complexity is bound by the number of elements in S j that satisfy the edge condition. Predictor Operations If [Ac(δ 1 . ∆I0 . . Scanner If [∆A . p1 ). A → • γ.76 CHAPTER 5. j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P : δ add every [(δ 2 .

e Completer E. pAc .d Completer D: Push with Active Node in I If [∆Ac . This requires the pA value of ∆Ac to be equal to −pI in ∆In (their integer values are opposites).3. A → αB • β. These additional operations are performed provided certain constraints are met. k] to S i ¯ In each set in S i there might be at most O(|I|·|G|·n2 ) items that satisfy the condition ∆Ac = ∆I . k] to S i Computing the set path2 for each ∆Ac takes O(|I| · n2 ) time.5. ∆Ac1 . add [∆Ac1 . ¯ There are at most O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) items in S j that satisfy this condition. recalculation of ∆Ac : Completer D and Completer E ¯ 3. So the total is n × O(|I| · n) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) = O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ) 3. given the node ∆Ac1 has to be considered to compute the result item added to the S i set ( the values of ∆Ac . There are O(n) possible values for each ∆Ac . so its bound is O(|I| · i3 ) for each set S i (∆Ac ) is bound by i). k] ∈ S j such that: ∆0 ∈ I ∪ I. performing reductions. ∆IO and k produce give O(n3 )). A → α • Bβ. ∆In . j] ∈ S i for edge(∆In . n. ∆I0 . Total complexity is then n × O(|I|2 · |G| · n3 ) × O(I · G · n2 ) = O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ) The remaining cases of the Completer involve more complex operations because the value of ∆Ac has to be recalculated. ) ¯ add [∆I0 . abs(pIn ). ∆0 ) and ¯ for [∆Ac1 . We will analyze each of them in turn. Completer Case 2. ∆I0 . ∆I0 . A → α • Bβ. ∆I0 . ∆In . k] ∈ S j such that the following conditions imposed on the edges are satisfied: ¯ if pAc1 > pI0 . and −pAc > pI0 and ∆I0 ∈ path2(∆Ac ) ¯ ¯ else if −pAc > pI0 and there is an edge (∆Ac . ) is done in constant time. B → γ • . Pop items with Push items that re-compute the value Active node. ∆I0 . COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS 77 In each set in S i there might be at most O(|I|2 · |G| · n3 ) items. ∆IO ∈ I such that ¯ ∆Ac = ∆I . ∆I0 . abs(pAc ).∆In and j : 0 ≤ j. ∆Ac1 . pIn < 0 : Compute path2(∆Ac ) for edge(∆In . A → αB • β. B → γ • . j] ∈ S i such that ∆Ac ∆In ∈ I. Checking if ∆I0 ∈ ¯ ¯ path2(∆Ac ) or there is an edge (∆Ac . ∆Ac1 . ¯ ∆In = ∆Ac1 . ∆I0 ) where for [∆Ac1 . Subcase 1 ¯ If [∆Ac . Each such item can be combined with at most O(|I|2 · |G| · n3 ) items in each set in S j .

RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Total complexity is then n × O(|I|2 · |G| · n3 ) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) = O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ) 3. within the same time bounds adding an operation to update the active node reducing all possible paths.] → Γ1 • B[. k. p... q] [C → Γ4 • .. k.γ]Γ2 . ∆I0 ) where ¯ ∆In = ∆Ac1 and items for [∆Ac1 . We have seen then that O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ) is the asymptotic bound for this algorithm.] → Γ1 B[. −] [B → Γ3 • .b. used to parse TAGs.. q. |C.e Completer E. rs] However the work load can be set either in the indexing mechanisms as is shown in the equivalent completor from [74].78 CHAPTER 5. |−. If we compare the algorithm with LIG algorithms. −. ) add [∆5 . A[. If we compare the influence of the grammar size on the time complexity of the algorithm for GIGs and the one for CFGs. i. γ. These can be done as a separate filtering on the completed items in S i .γ]Γ2 .. η. r.}. j. the impact of the grammar size might be higher for the LIG algorithms and the impact of the indexing mechanism smaller. ∆Ac1 . Therefore if the set of indices is relatively small there is not a significant change in the influence of the grammar size. B → γ • .γ]Γ2 . |D. p. k] to S i There are at most O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) items in each set S i that satisfy the condition ∆Ac = ∆In ¯ There are at most O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) items in each set S j that satisfy the condition ∆In = ∆Ac1 There are at most O(|I| · n) edges for each ∆Ac1 . that involves the combination of three constituents: [A[. Pop items with Push items that re-compute the value Active node. j] ∈ S i such that ∆Ac = ∆In ∈ I: for edge(∆In . ∆In . the only change corresponds to the added size of I. k] ∈ S j for edge(∆Ac1 .. i. ∆5 . η. j. |D. A → α • Bβ. where the set of nonterminals is {t. A → αB • β. s] [A[. ∆In . Total complexity is then n × O(|I| · n) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) = O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ) ¯ Finally we have not considered the case of the path2 with different values than ∆I0 .] → Γ1 • B[. ∆I0 . The higher impact of the grammar size would be motivated in the following kind of completer required by LIGs (from [4]). −. Subcase 2 ¯ If [∆Ac .

−.. Storage of the graph-structured stack takes O(n3 ). PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM Type 4 Completor: 79 t[η] → • t[η r ]. l b[η] → ∆ • . −. i] is inserted in the set S j if and only if the following holds: 1.5. i. S ⇒ a1 . q.. i. p. and the number of possible nodes is bound by n. Given there are four parameter bound by n in each item. i. j. j. aj Figure 5. k t[η] → t[η r ] • . ai a i+1 .ai Aγ 2. t[. α ⇒ ai+1 . its space complexity is O(n4 ). q. l A note on Space Complexity The space complexity is determined by the storage of Earley items. Storing the combination of i-edges and edges involves three nodes.aj ∗ ∗ S γ A η α β a1 ... i t[η r ] → Θ • ..4 Proof of the Correctness of the Algorithm The correctness of Earley’s algorithm for CFGs follows from the following two invariants (top down prediction and bottom-up recognition) respectively: Proposition 5 An item [A → α • β.4. k... therefore it can be done in a n × n × n table.η] → t[.ηη r ] 5..20: Earley CFG invariant .. p..

X n is a production of type (b. This is specified in terms of the Dyck language over ¯ I ∪I 5.... If A → aX 1 .. p1 ). then: ¯ µ wAγ.. #δx 3.X k γ. If A → X 1 .X n γ.ai Aγ.X n γ.. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .. taking into account the operations on the stack.. Define C ¯ to be the Dyck language over the alphabet I ∪ I (the set of stack indices and their complements). then: µ wAγ.e.) or push: µ = x.. ∗ An item [Ac(y...X n is a production of type (c. #δ ⇒ waX k . #.. w be in T ∗ and X i in (N ∪ T ). #δxδ y ⇒ wX 1 . I(z.. 1. #δx 2.1 Control Languages ∗ We defined the language of a GIG G. 173-185 and [87] for a control language representation for LIGs.. y ∈ I. We can obtain an explicit control language9 modifying the definition of derivation for any GIG G = (N. # ⇒ a1 ..) (i. I. T. #δxδ y¯ x Then. x ∈ I. #δx¯ x ¯ 4.. x ∈ I) then: βAγ.. If A → X 1 . #δx ⇒ βX 1 .X n is a production of type (c.. x ∈ I. S.. S. we address the correctness of the algorithm as follows: Proposition 6 (Invariants) . It is apparent that both definitions of a GIG language are equivalent. L(G) to be: {w|#S ⇒ #w and w is in T ∗ }. i] is a valid item in the Set S j if and only if the following holds: ¯ 1. δ is in C }.80 CHAPTER 5. x ∈ I.X k γ....X n γ. µ = µ [x] or µ = [x]. #δx ⇒ wX 1 . δ be in I ∗ . #δ or βAγ.. define the language of a GIG G to be the control language L(G. #δ and w is in T ∗ . Let β and γ be in (N ∪ T )∗ .. x in I..) or pop : µ = x. and δ y ∈ C then: ¯ µ wAγ. A → α • β. If A → X 1 .X k is a production of type (a. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS The corresponding invariants of Earley’s algorithm for GIGs can be stated in a similar way. P ) as follows. p0 ). #δ ⇒ βX 1 . # ⇒ w. 9 See ∗ [25] for control languages pp. .) or pop : µ = x. Assuming such an alternative definition of a GIG language..4. C): {w| S.

.. specifies the constraints related to the position correlation with the strings in the generated language. specifies the properties for the different types of productions that generated the current item. a framework that allows high-level specification and analysis of parsing algorithms [75. #νz µy π Such that: a. π ∈ C and νz µy πρ ∈ C for some ρ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .4.4. Condition c.21 depicts the properties of the invariant. Condition b. ∈ cl(δ ). µπ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .. p0 ≤ i + 1 and p1 ≤ j. This framework enables the analysis of relations between different parsing . 76]. z. δ = z iff δ ∈ I ∪ I.aj . i+1 aj ν z µ yπ Figure 5. The remaining conditions specify the properties of the string νz µy π relative to the control language C. ν. y = y . Condition a. α. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 .5. ∗ S ν a 1 . y ∈ I ∪ I iff z = z . # γ .. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 2.21: GIG invariant We will use Parsing Schemata to prove this proposition. Figure 5.2 Parsing Schemata We use Parsing Schemata. It will also help to understand the implementation of the algorithm we detail in the appendix. else δ = ¯ ¯ ¯ c.. 5. y π A z ai a .. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ 81 3. specifies the properties of information of the graph-structured stack encoded in the item. z. specifies that the item has a transmitted node from the graph if the empty string was generated in the control language. d. which naturally embed the invariant properties of the Earley algorithm for CFGs. ¯ b. Condition d. δ ∈ DI iff z µy π = epsilon.α η β µ .

.. η k sentence. V(PEarley ) = {[A → α • β. DPred . 0. Parsing Schema 1 (Earley Schema for CFGs) .g. A set of final items. A Parsing schema extends parsing systems for arbitrary grammars and strings. i] | a = ai ∧ 1 ≤ i ≤ n}. Earley items. 0]}.. represent the recognition of a [B → • γ. i. position in the string. j. j]} DInit = { [S → • S.. Parsing schemata are closely related to the deductive parsing approach (e. i. then the consequent ξ is generated by the parser. [a. Earley operations are defined by the allowed deductions: DScan . This parsing schema is defined by a parsing system PEarley for any CFG G and any a1 . j]}.[72]). n]}. [A → αB • β. j]|S ⇒ a1 . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS algorithms by means of the relations between their respective parsing schemata. i.aj } ∗ .an ∈ Σ∗ by: I Earley = {[A → α • β. 0. i. k.. j]}. i − 1.. Deduction steps are of the form η 1 . j + 1]} such that A → αβ ∈ P and 0 ≤ i ≤ j HEarley = {[a. defined by I Earley below. 0. n] |S ⇒ a1 . Parsing Schemata are generalizations (or uninstantiations) of a parsing system P. j. i. j + 1] DPred = {[A → α • Bβ.82 CHAPTER 5. DScan = {[A → α • aβ. C Earley = {[S → S • .. F ∈ I. [B → γ • δ. j].ai Aγ ∧ ∗ ∗ α ⇒ ai+1 .. as we already saw are stored in sets according to each.. We present parsing schemata rather informally here.. As an example we introduce the Earley Schema for CFGs.. DComp . i. j] [A → αa • β.an that conforms to the item in question. ξ which means that if all the required antecedents η i are present. say j. k]. A parsing system P for a grammar G and a string a1 .an } The set of valid items is defined by the invariant of the algorithm. j] DEarley = DInit ∪ DScan ∪ DPred ∪ DComp F Earley = {[S → S • . DComp = {[A → α • Bβ. The corresponding set of items in the Schema is encoded by an additional parameter in the items Schema items..... . A final item F(PEarley ) ∈ I is correct if there is a parse tree for any string a1 . j.an is composed of three parameters a) I as set of items that represent partial specifications of parse results b) H a finite set of items (hypothesis) encodes the sentence to be parsed and D a set of deduction steps that allow to derive new items from already known items. The input string is encoded by the set of hypothesis HEarley .

η kj Those deduction steps that compute the the Control language are DPath a . and they introduce prediction items η p in IC EarleyGIG . a different set of items. η ij η jj ∧ η p Completers DCompB . DPrPop1 . and this corresponds to the control language. Predictor steps can be decomposed as: η ij η ij η jj ηp η ij ηp Completer Steps can be decomposed as: η ik . and they introduce completion items η p in IC EarleyGIG .3 Parsing Schemata for GIGs The parsing schema for GIGs presented here is an extension of the parsing schema for CFGs given in the previous subsection. It can be observed that the major differences compared to the CFGs schema are the addition of different types of Prediction and Completer deduction steps. will represent edges and paths in the graph. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 83 Definition 12 A parsing system (P) is sound if F(P) ∩ V(P) ⊆ C(P) (all valid final items are correct).2. However there is an additional type of deduction step performed in this parsing schema. Those items in IC EGIG . A parsing system (P) is complete if F(P) ∩ V(P) ⊇ C(P) (all correct final items are valid). will be used to perform the corresponding deduction steps.5. DPath b .4. Items in IC EGIG will participate in some restricted deduction steps.4. A Parsing system is correct if F(P) ∩ V(P) = C(P) 5. Prediction Push and Pop deduction Steps. η kj η ij ∧ η p This kind of deduction step can be understood as shortform for two deduction steps. and DCompG have the following shape. The parsing schema for GIGs corresponds to the algorithm 6 presented in section 5. DPath2 a . DPrPush . η kj η ik . η ik . and DPrPop2 have the following shape. DCompF . DPath2 b . Therefore IC EGIG .

i. j + 1] [∆Ac . j]. path. i. p1 )+. pushC. j] |ν = or ν = [δ Ac ]} ν DPrPush = {[∆Ac1 . B → • γ. S → • S$. A → α • Bβ.84 CHAPTER 5. j. j] [(δ 2 . ∆In . (δ 1 . −p1 ). ∆Ac1 . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Parsing Schema 2 (Earley Schema for GIGs) . A → α • Bβ. i. P ) and any a1 . (#. ∆In ∈ {(δ. ∆In . This parsing schema is defined by a parsing system PEGIG for any GIG G = (N. j + 1]} DPrE = {[∆Ac .. or δ = cl(δ )} . j]} such that ∆Ac . p)|δ ∈ DI. j. −p1 ). [a. popC. ∆I0 . ∆I0 ] | δ 2 ∈ I}. A → αa • β. (δ 2 . A → αβ ∈ P 0 ≤ i. j. ∆I0 . ∆I0 ] | δ ∈ I]}. I. ∆Ac . 0. (δ 2 . (δ 1 . p)|δ ∈ DI ∧ 0 ≤ p ≤ j} and P is in {pop. 0]}. i.. 0). push. i. DPrPop1 = {[(δ 1 . #. ∆2 ]} such that ∆i ∈ {(δ. 0). j + 1). i. ∆In . p1 ). ∆I0 )]} ∪ {[P. i] | a = ai ∧ 1 ≤ i ≤ n}. j] ∧ ¯ ¯ [pop. B → • γ. DInit = { [(#. ∆I0 . j. cl(∆)I0 . A → α • β. DScan = {[∆Ac . B → • γ. path2} HEGIG = {[a. A → α • Bβ. −p1 ). j] ¯ ¯ [(δ 1 . j + 1). ∆1 .an ∈ Σ∗ by: I EGIG = {[∆Ac . T. S. i − 1. ¯ δ1 . j] ∧ δ2 [push. p ≤ j and IC EGIG = {[P. ∆Ac1 . j + 1). j] [∆Ac . (δ 1 . A → α • aβ.

∆1 +. ∆1 − . ∆I ]|δ 1 ∈ I}. ¯ [P.5. ∆2 +. B → γ • . ∆1 +. ∆R3 = ∆R1 . ∆I0 . [path. ∆2 +. ∆I0 . ∆R ]. ∆1 −. ∆2 −. ∆In . ∆Ac −. j] ∧ [pop. j. [path. ∆I0 . A → α • Bβ. P = pushC)} ¯ DPath d = {[pop. ∆2 +. B → • γ. ∆3 +. ∆I0 ] ¯ ¯ [∆Ac1 .4. ∆1 +. ∆R ]. ∆R3 = ∆R4 . [∆In . ∆R3 ] | (∆R1 = ∆1 +. A → αB • β. ∆R1 ] | − same conditions P atha } DPrPop2 = {[∆Ac −. . ∆R3 = ∆R2 . ∆1 −. i. . ∆]. A → αB • β. i. i. ∆3 −. ∆R2 = ∆R1 . ∆3 −. i. . j]. [pushC. P = pushC)} ¯ DPath b = {[pop. j. DCompB = {[∆Ac +. ∆I0 ] [∆Ac1 . ∆1 −. [path. ∆2 +. ∆1 − . ∆R3 ] | (∆R1 = ∆1 +. ∆3 +. ∆I . ∆In . ∆1 . ∆In +. ∆3 +. [path. k] [∆Ac +. B → γ • . ∆R1 ] ¯ [path. B → γ • k. ∆R ]. j]}. ∆I0 ] [∆Ac1 . ∆R1 ] ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ [∆1 . ∆1 −. k]. ∆]. ∆R2 ] ¯ [path. ∆I ] . ∆1 +. ∆R3 = ∆R1 . P = push) ∨ (∆R1 < ∆1 +. j]. ∆1 . [P. [P. ∆1 −. ∆R2 ] | (∆R = ∆1 +. ∆In +. ¯ δ1 85 ¯ DPath c = {[pop. ∆R2 = ∆R . ∆4 +. ∆3 −. [∆In +. j] ∧ [pushC. ∆I0 ]} DCompC = {[∆Ac −. j]. ∆1 − . ∆R4 ] ¯ [path. k. ∆1 +. ∆1 +. i. ∆In +. ∆2 −. [∆In +. ∆I . PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM ¯ DPath a = {[pop. ∆1 +. P = push) ∨ (∆R1 < ∆1 +. ∆R1 ]. ∆R2 ] ¯ [path. ∆1 +. j]. P = push) ∨ (∆R < ∆1 +. [P. k. ∆2 −. ∆R1 ]. A → α • Bβ. A → α • Bβ. k] [∆Ac . ∆1 +. P = pushC)} DCompA = {[∆Ac . ∆3 − . CL(∆)I0 . ∆R ]. ∆2 −. [path. A → α • Bβ. ∆Ac −.

∆I0 . ∆In −. ∆In −. ∆1 +. ∆I0 . ∆In −. A → α • Bβ. ∆I0 ] ¯ [∆In −. k. ∆In −. ∆1 +]. ∆In . B → γ • . i. k] [∆Ac1 . . ∆2 −]. j]. k] [∆Ac1 . j]. j]} ¯ DCompE = {[∆Ac −. ∆1 −. ∆I0 . ∆I0 . k. ∆I0 −] [∆Ac1 . [pushC. ∆2 −] ¯ DPath2 b = [pushC. j] } . j] } DCompF = {[∆Ac . i. ∆I0 . k]. j]} ¯ DCompD = {[∆I −. i. ∆1 −. ∆2 −] ¯ [path2. CL(∆)I0 . A → α • Bβ. ∆In . ∆Ac2 −] [∆Ac2 −. A → α • Bβ. k] [∆Ac . [∆In −. ∆1 +. ∆I0 ] |∆Ac > ∆In } ¯ DPath2 a = [pushC. ∆I0 +. j] ∧ [pushC. i. B → γ • . ∆I0 . B → γ • . ∆In +. j]. ∆Ac −. ∆3 −] DCompG = {[∆Ac . B → γ • . ∆2 −. . ∆I0 ] [∆Ac1 . [∆In +. A → αB • β. A → α • Bβ. ∆I0 ]} DCompH = {[∆Ac1 . k] [∆Ac . [path2. ∆3 −] ¯ [path2. [∆Ac1 . i. ∆I0 . [∆In −. i. j]. B → γ • . ∆1 − . i. [pushC. ∆1 +]. ∆1 −. i. A → α • Bβ. j]. i. [path2.86 CHAPTER 5. [∆In −. k. A → αB • β. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS [∆Ac +. A → αB • β. i. A → αB • β. ∆I0 −. A → αB • β. k. k. . ∆I0 −. i. ∆I0 . ∆I0 +] [∆Ac1 . j] ∧ [pushC. A → αB • β.

2. p0 )] is valid for a string a1 · · · aj if and only if the following holds: ¯ ¯ 1. 1 ≤ i ≤ k. (y. νx = µyπ such that y ∈ I.11 Proposition 7 (Invariant of the Path function) . (ii) for each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 . S.5. −p2 ). PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM A correctness proof method for parsing schemata This method is defined in [76] 87 • Define the set of viable items W ⊆ I as the set of items such that the invariant property holds. p1 ). In other words that the deduction steps preserve the invariant property.aj γ. (x. : W ⊆ I a set of items. the items corresponding to the control language. to use in the induction proof. (z. The derivation length function is defined according to the properties of the parsing algorithm. • Proof of soundness for all the deduction steps: V(P) ⊆ W. · · · . A function d : H ∪ W → N is a dlf if (i) d(h) = 0 for h ∈ H. we need also an invariant for the computation of the control properties. • Proof of completeness: W ⊆ V(P). An item [path. η k ξ ∈ D such that {η 1 . η k } ⊆ W and d(η i ) < d(ξ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ k. Definition 13 (derivation length function ) 10 Let (P) be a parsing schema. and π ∈ C ∗ . IC EGIG . It has to be shown that for all η1 · · · ηk ξ ∈ D with η i ∈ H ∪ W. it holds that ξ ∈ W . # ⇒ a1 . ξ ∈ V(P). This proof uses a so-called deduction length function (dlf ). p2 > p1 ≥ p0 3. #νx for some γ ∈ N V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ and x ∈ I.. · · · .4. then prove that all ξ with d(ξ) = m.. Because we introduced another class of items. Assume that any item η in W with derivation length less than m is obtained (if d(η) < m then η ∈ V(P)). Show that all the viable items (all possible derivations are deduced by the algorithm).

η k are correct items. p1 ). j ≤ n. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . p1 ). V(P) ⊆ W. An item η j : [Ac(y. correctness of the push items is straightforward.ai Aγ. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS S z S zy y a1 # x γ ρ a 1 . i] is in S j if and only if η j −1 : [Ac(y. α.(A → αaβ) ∈ P δ ∗ c. Predict Completer) . .. b. P. S. A → α • aβ. #νz µy π 10 From 11 The ∗ [76]. Regarding the pop items it is derived from the path function... S) be a GIG and let w = a1 · · · an . for grammar G and input w and η i . # µ y x γ ρ .. Let G = (N.22: Path invariant Lemma 7 (GIG items soundness is preserved under Scan. i] is in S j −1 and η j −1 Since η j −1 is correct. • If η i is a correct item for grammar G and input w and η i η j then η j is a correct item..2. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . I(z. A → αa • β. • Case 1.88 CHAPTER 5. µ y aj π π a j Figure 5. #.. # ⇒ a1 .. Scanner. then scan ηj ¯ a. where correct means that the proposition 2.aj −1 . Let 0 ≤ i. I(z. η k item. η j then η j is a correct • If η i . 1 ≤ i ≤ k it holds that ξ ∈ W This can be rephrased as follows in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5. (the invariant property) holds. For all η 1 · · · η k ξ ∈ D with η i ∈ H ∪ W. I. p0 ). n ≥ 0 where each ak ∈ T for 1 ≤ k ≤ n. Proof .. T. p0 ).

(z. p0 )) y e. #νzµyπ ⇒ x ..ai Aγ. u = x.aj . δ = . p0 )) e. #νzµyπ from (B → ξ) ∈ P ii. p2 = −p1 ¯ ¯ ¯ η ij predict η jj ∧ η pop η pop = [pop. δ = x ∈ I. #νzµyπ y ¯ It should be noted also due to η pop is obtained in this derivation. p1 ).. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . #νz µy π by b. p3 = −p1 . B → • ξ. (¯. I(z. (z. ij predict η jj ∗ . . allows us to conclude that η j is a correct item in S j . j + 1). α. I(x.. u = y . η push η path [path. S. #νzµyπx iii. p1 ).) and the following deduction steps apply according to the value of δ i. Predictors An item η jj : [Ac(u. p3 ). i] is in S j . b. S. p1 = p2 . δ = y . #νzµyπ y ⇒ ¯ ∗ . x = cl(z). #νzµyπx ⇒ y ¯ ∗ . b. This together with a. # ⇒ a1 . (y. −p1 ). p0 ). #νzµy π Therefore: (this is common to all the subcases) d. η e. and c. z ) ¯ . p2 = j + 1 η ij predict η jj ∧ η push η push = [push. and c. A → α • Bβ. #νzµyπ from η ∗ ij ∗ (a. the following derivations follow: η pop . x . (B → ξ) ∈ P . (B → ξ) ∈ P such that δ Since η ij is correct. and we conclude the proof for Case1.(A → αBβ) ∈ P δ c. p3 = p0 . p2 ). #ηδ ⇒ (ai+1 . y .4. .. (y. u = y. ∗ ¯ a.. j] is in S j if and only if: η ij : [Ac(y.aj . p1 ). p3 = j + 1.5. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM ∗ 89 Now αaj . • Case 2. (x. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 .. (B → aξ) ∈ P . x = y . # ⇒ a1 · · · ai ai+1 · · · aj Bβγ.

(B → ξ) ∈ P . η push η path1 η path2 by Dpath b where η pop = [pop. p0 )] x Since η path = [path. p1 ). −p3 ). I(z. A → α • Bβ. δ = x .ai Aγ. x . y ∈ I. p2 ). S. p0 ). η push η path η path2 by Dpath b η pop . η path2 = [¯. z ] is correct. p3 < 0. #νzµyπ from η . p0 )] where p is either push or pop. z ) such that x ∈ I and z is either z or z . # ⇒ a1 . u = x. x = x . b. x . x . I(z. i] is in S k and an item η p : [p. the same deductions as in the previous case are triggered: η pop . I1(x. p2 = p3 . and c. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai ai+1 · · · aj Bβγ. I1(x. p1 ). z ) η pop = [pop. η push = [push. I(z. ¯ by Dpath a or η pop . A → αB • β. #νz µy πδ ⇒ ∗ ∗ ij (a. ¯ ¯ ¯ iv. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . Therefore S. y . y. ¯ x η ij . p2 ). y . x. abs(p3 )). k] is in S j and [Ac1(u. η path predict η jj ∧ η pop η path ((y. i] is in S j if and only if an item η an item η kj : ik : [Ac(y. ¯ ¯ It should be noted also that as a consequence of η pop . Completer An item η ij : [Ac(y . z). z ]. (This item corresponds to the edges that relate the nodes in η ij and η kj Given η ik and η kj are valid items we obtain: ∗ ¯ a. x ∈ I. . y. (y. y. y. (x . (x . #νzµyπ x from (B → ξ) ∈ P ¯ δ such that #νzµyπ x = #ν xπ x from d. p3 ).. #νzµyπ = #ν x π such that π ∈ C. p1 ). η path1 = [path. abs(p3 )). z) and η push = [push.. (y. x. ∆Ac1 . p1 ). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS where η pop = [pop. (z. η push η path1 Case 3. ¯ ¯ ¯ y x. p3 ). (¯. z ). then d. z ]. p0 ). in the previous page) .90 CHAPTER 5. B → ξ • .

p2 ). I(z. the control language spans in positions i. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . p0 ) in η ik Ac(y.. #νz µu π for some (A → αBβ) ∈ P δ ∗ 91 from η ik and ⇒ ak +1 .. if and only if: z ∈ cl(i).5. prove that η j : [Ac(y. η ik . #ν δ for some (B → ξ) ∈ P δ Now compose some of the pieces: d. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM b. η kj . ⇒ ai+1 · · · ak ak +1 · · · . p3 ) in η kj . A → αB • β.aj . #ν x µy π ∗ c. (x. αB.. η p . I1(x. aj #νz µu πx µy π This derivation together with a. Both substrings are substrings of the Control language but their concatenation might not be. Those conditions are checked as follows according to the corresponding deduction step: A. η kj . The individual properties of zµu and xµy are checked using the information stored at: Ac1(u. p3 ). active node:-) if and only if: . ηp Complete η ij (η kj initial node:+. #νz µu π e. We need to check the information in the corresponding nodes to validate the substring properties. The crucial step is checking the consistency of: #νzµuπxµ yπ in f. η p Complete η ij (η ik is a transmitted item). B.ak Bβ. p0 ). η ik . ⇒ ai+1 · · · ak ξ. η ik . ξ. p0 )] therefore given #ν (xµ (yπ is in the control language for some ρ then #νzµuπxµ yπ is also in the control language for some ρ C.4. (z. p2 ).ak . α.. η kj . x ∈ I and p2 ≥ p3 > 0 η pushC = [pushC. therefore the Consequently the result subtree contains #ν xµ yπ = which is in the control language.. I(z. k. η p Complete η ij ∧ η pushC (η kj has positive initial and active nodes) if and only if: y. #νz µu πδ ∗ ∗ from (B → ξ) ∈ P δ f. p1 ).. i] is a correct item in S j .

η kj . (z. (x. p2 ). Therefore: #νzµuπ(xµ y)π = #νzµuπ(xµ x)µ y)π ¯ D. p0 )] u η path2 = [path2. η kj . ¯ η path2 guarantees that the result is in the control language. −p3 ). p3 ). ηp Complete η ij if and only if x ∈ cl(DI). F. y = x. A reduction is performed. p2 )]. η kj . if and only if: η p = [p. p0 < 0. (x. (¯. (y . −p3 )] x x requirement that x has to be reduced. p3 ). p3 )] ¯ z. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ x ∈ I. (y. . x ∈ I. η p and π ∈ C. (¯. (¯. p1 ). Result is νzµuπx)µ y π H. p3 )] ¯ z ∈ I. η path2 Complete η ij ( x reduces u. The current active node is negative). η ik . η ik . (x. η ik . −p1 ). y ∈ I. p3 = −p1 ¯ Result string: #νzµ(uπ u)µ y π which is equivalent to #νzµπ µ y π . η ik . p3 > 0. ¯ Therefore #νzµuπ(xµ x)π = #νzµuπ ¯ E. p3 < 0. ηp Complete η ij ∧ η p 2 if and only if η p 2 = [popC. η kj . η kj . (x. p3 > 0. p3 < p2 Result is νzµuπx)µ y π G. . ηp Complete η ij ∧ η p if and only if: η p = [popC. abs(p2 ) < p3 η p = [popC.92 CHAPTER 5. x ∈ I.) if and only if: x ∈ I. η ik . abs(p2 ) ≤ abs(p0 ) x = u. η p Complete η ij (xµ yπ is in C. the initial node is a transmitted node. p2 = −p3 . (u.

(x < y) +/ TARGET ITEM Ac1(u. If 1. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ. p3 ) Ac(y. For each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 · · · η k 1 ≤ i ≤ k. . −) #νzµuπ +:u Table 5. ¯ µ = µ x )µ reduce: #νz µ u π ¯ #νz µ(u π u )µ y π reduce: #νz µ y π #νz µu πx )µ y π pushC(∆In .1 summarizes the conditions specified by the Completer Operations. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM I1(x. Completeness) . S. Result x µy π #νz µu π(x µ (y π #νz µu π(x µ y )π .4. p1 ) I(z. It states that all the derivations in the grammar will have the corresponding item in the set of states. #ν 2.5.1: Conditions on the completer Deductions Lemma 8 (Second direction. then an item ξ = [Ac(y. This lemma is equivalent to the following claim in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5. p2 ) +/+/+ –+ + – + -x=u ¯ cl(xµyπ ) = –: y=x ¯ +/. #νzν yν } where δ = z if δ ∈ I ∪ I else δ = ∗ ξ ∈ D such that {η 1 · · · η k } ∈ W and d(η i ) < d(ξ) for such that #νzν yν satisfies the conditions imposed in proposition 2. A → α • β. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM cl(x)µ y π = Therefore the result is νzµuπ 93 The following table 5. i] is inserted in the Set S j . p1 ). I(z. p0 ) cl(z µu π) = +/+/+/+/+ +/-. α.2 and Proposition 6. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ ¯ 3. p0 ).

i. • Completers: ξ = [Ac(y. p2 ). because of the Completer operation.94 CHAPTER 5. such that the invariant holds for those items previously introduced in the item set. #ν zν uν ⇒ γ. p0 ). #ν µ λ π 12 ∧ } ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . A → αa • β. # ⇒ δAγ. I(z. S. A → α • aβ. A → α • β. p1 ). The modification of the Earley algorithm for GIGs does not modify the treewalk that the algorithm performs. α. #ν ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . #ν 2. p0 ). #ν ⇒ a1 · · · ai . j] ∈ HGIG d(ζ) = 0. I(z. 12 Notice that induction on the strict length of the derivation would not work. I(z. α. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ . #ν zν uν xµyπ with minimal µ + ρ ¯ then if δ = x ∈ I ∪ I η = [Ac(u. #νzν yν ∗ ¯ } if δ ∈ I ∪ I else δ = Then η = [Ac(y. I(z. p1 ). #ν zν uν δ ⇒ aj +1 · · · ak . The conception of the derivation length function is similar to the kind of induction used by [39] on the order of the items to be introduced in the set S i . p1 ). #ν zν uν δ δ ρ µ ∗ and γ. j]) = min{π + 2λ + 2µ + j | S. p0 ). #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . p0 ). j − 1. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ . (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ 3. #ν . #ν zν uν B. A → αB • β. i] is in S j . #ν α. d(η) = d(ξ) − 1 and ζ. p1 ). Therefore the derivation length function is the same as defined by [76] as follows: d([Ac(y. I(z. i] in S k Let S. A → α • Bβ. i] is in S j −1 and from ζ = [a. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS The proof by induction on the derivation length function d applied to the derivations specified in 1. p0 ). and 3. The derivation length function is based on the treewalk that the Earley algorithm performs. #ν ∧ δ. ν zν yν • Scanner: ξ = [Ac(y. . i] Let 1. η ξ.

(z. #ν δ δ λ π ∗ α. λ. p3 ). ζ if δ = ξ 95 and xµyπ = ζ = [Ac(u. j] in S j Let S. I(cl(z). ζ ξ • Predict: ξ = [Ac(y. A → α • Bβ. p1 ). B → γ • . η . (x. γ . ζ = [Ac(y. p3 ). p2 ). ζ ξ if δ = and xµyπ = η = [p. p1 ). ζ = [Ac(y. #ν and A. B → γ • . j] is in S k and d(η) < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. p3 ). η. ν zν yν µ } with π + 2λ + 2µ minimal. p1 ). p0 )] d(η) = d(ξ) − 1 = d(η p ) . I(x. p0 ). B → γ • . j] is in S k and d(η) = d(η ) − 1 < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. p0 )] such that p = push or p = pop. η. I(z. p0 )] such that p = push or p = pop. #ν δ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . # ⇒ δAγ . p1 ). (z. η . #ν . p1 ). #ν and let δ. p0 ). I(z. (u. δ. p3 ). µ such that S. #ν ⇒ a1 · · · ai . #ν ⇒ αBβ. I(x. π. η . B → • γ. p3 ). Then η = [Ac(y. (u. η. j] is in S k and d(η) < d(η ) < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. (x. p2 ). (δ. p0 ).4. # ⇒ a1 · · · aj Bγ .5. (z. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM η = [p. j] η η ξ if δ = ξ ∧ ηp and η p = [p. (y. p1 ).

However. called the trigger item. Because the inference rules are stated explicitly. Initialize the chart to the empty set of items and the agenda to the axioms of the deduction system. agenda-based inference engine described in [72]. the parsing algorithm described in section 5. Given that the parsing schema abstracts from implementation details of an algorithm. (b) Add the trigger item to the chart. we have proved the correctness of the Parsing Schema V(P) = W. Those new potential items are triggered by items added to the chart. the prototype is not particularly efficient. . and remove it. The chart holds unique items in order to avoid applying a rule of inference to items to which the rule of inference has already applied before. as a meta-interpreter. The Prolog database is used as a chart which plays the same role as the state sets in Earley’s algorithm. Encodings of the parsing schema as inference rules are interpreted by the inference engine. When an item is removed from the agenda and added to the chart. This is performed using the subsumption capabilities of prolog: those items not already subsumed by a previously generated item are asserted to the database (the chart). the relation between the abstract inference rules described in the previous section as parsing schema and the implementation we used is extremely transparent. 5. Any new potential items are added to an agenda of items for temporarily recording items whose consequences under the inference rules have not been generated yet. its consequences are computed and themselves added to the agenda for later consideration. 2.5 Implementation In order to perform some tests and as a proof of concept. Items should be added to the chart as they are proved. However. each new item may itself generate new consequences. Repeat the following steps until the agenda is exhausted: (a) Select an item from the agenda.2 was implemented in Sicstus Prolog on top of a general-purpose. the inference engine provides the control and data types. and Lemma 8 W ⊆ V(P).96 CHAPTER 5. The general form of an agenda-driven. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Therefore from Lemma 7 ( V(P) ⊆ W). chart-based deduction procedure is as follows (from [72]): 1. if necessary.

b}∗ } • {w(cw)+ |w ∈ {a. {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm in j n |n ≥ 1} • {an bn wwcn dn |n ≥ 1. The axioms correspond to the initial item in the Parsing Schema: DInit = { [(#. IMPLEMENTATION 97 (c) If the trigger item was added to the chart. {an bn cn de n |n ≥ 1}. w ∈ {a. (#.5. 0). Tests on the following languages were performed: • {an bn cn |n ≥ 1}. In this implementation the control language was not represented by separate items but as side conditions on the inference rules. S → S • . 3. 0). 0. 0. generate all items that are new immediate consequences of the trigger item together with all items in the chart. S → • S$. the goal is proved (and the string recognized).5. b}+ } • Grammar Gamb4 which generates aabbcdcd but does not generate aabbcddc nor aabbdccd. b. {ww|w ∈ {a. This grammar has a high degree of ambiguity. The goal corresponds to the final item in the Parsing Schema: F EGIG = {[(#. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 1} Critically the most demanding was the mix language due to the grammar we chose: Gmix presented in chapter 2. • Grammar Gamb5b which generates aacdbbcd and aadcbbdc but does not generate aacdbbdd nor aacdbbdc (a variation of Gamb5 presented above). • {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm |n ≥ 1}. and add these generated items to the agenda. b}+ } {an (bn cn )+ |n ≥ 1}. which where performed by procedures which implemented the path function over the graph representation. • The mix language {w|w ∈ {a. n]}. 0). {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1}. If a goal item is in the chart. (#. otherwise it is not. 0). The number of items generated for the Mix and the copy languages were as follows: . 0]} and the encoding of the input string.

. A → β 1 • β 2 ] where δ is in I ∪ {#} is valid for a viable GIG µ prefix αβ 1 if there is a derivation using the GIG context free backbone: S ⇒ αAw⇒ αβ 1 β 2 w and there is a GIG derivation S ⇒ γ i a1 . ≈ 300 ≈ 1.100 ≈5.. if multiple values are allowed in the parsing table (cf. This approach can be extended to a Generalized LR parsing approach. The notion of valid items for GILs is more complex because a GIG LR-item has to encode the possible configurations of the auxiliary stack.000 ≈6. In the GIG case.6 LR parsing for GILs An LR parser for a CFL is essentially a compiler that converts an LR CFG into a DPDA automaton (cf.000 ≈ 9.98 Length 6 9/10 12 15/16 18 CHAPTER 5.aj β 2 β.976 Mix L. The set of prefixes of right sentential forms that can appear on the stack of a shift-reduce parser are called viable prefixes in context free LR-parsing.736 50.000 20.ai Aβ ⇒ δγ j a1 . Both [75] and [3] describe transformations of Earley Parsing Schemata to LR Parsing Schemata.800 5. [41]. We use this notion of viable prefixes to describe the computation of the rm rm ∗ main stack in a LR-2PDA. [2]). It is also more complex because GIL derivation requires leftmost derivation for the stack operations.. the technique we present here converts an LR GIG into a deterministic LR-2PDA according to the definition presented in Chapter 2.100 MCopy L. ≈ 100 ≈ 400 ≈ 700 ≈ 1. We will do this in such a way that the set of items contain information not only of what possible items belong to the set but also of the possible indices that might be associated to the set of parsing configurations that the items describe. Therefore the set of items has to encode the corresponding top-down prediction that affects the stack of indices.500 ≈ 2. We will refer to the connections between Earley parsing and LR parsing to clarify this presentation. The similarities of Earley Parsing and LR parsing are made explicit in those transformations. IN ).000 ≈ 16.000 ≈ 28.000 Copy L. The sets that define the states in GIG LR parsing are composed by a pair of sets (IT. ≈ 500 ≈ 2. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS n4 1296 10. ∗ ∗ rm rm ∗ .6. We say a GIG item index pair [ δ.1 LR items and viable prefixes We assume the reader has knowledge of LR parsing techniques (cf.. [2]).500 ≈2.625 104. [80]). 5. An item A → β 1 • β 2 is valid for a viable prefix αβ 1 if there is a derivation S ⇒ αAw ⇒ αβ 1 β 2 w.

R → Ra ¯ i 5. Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to the closure of IT . The Closure operation is equivalent to the Predict function in Earley parsing (cf. the goto function and the parsing table. ) |B → γ is a production } (a PDA transition) ¯ ι ¯ ι It is apparent that the two items should not be conflated because there is a change in the stack configuration. S.The transitions of this NFA are of the following form: δ(A → α • Bβ. ι) = {(B → • γ. LR PARSING FOR GILS 99 5. They are also determined by the Goto operation. If A → α • Bβ is in closure(IT ) and (i) B → γ is a production where δ is in I ∪ { }. Such productions are considered in case 2 of the Goto function. However in Earley’s algorithm this computation is done in run-time while in LR parsing it is precompiled in the LR states. R → [#] 4.2 The Closure Operation. b}.[3]). ) = {B → • γ |B → γ is a production } (a NFA transition) In the GIG case the transitions should be as follows.6. 2. {i. For the GIG algorithm the set of items and possible index values cannot be determined only by the Closure operation. The following example uses a grammar for the language Lwcw to depict the construction of the set of items. or (ii) µ δ B → aγ then add the item B → • γ (case 1) or the item B → • aγ (case 2) to IT if it is not δ δ δ already there. S → aS i 2. Initially. [41]) the Closure operation is equivalent to obtaining the set of states of a NFA that recognizes the viable prefixes. j}. b}∗ }. #. If IT is a set of items for a grammar G. every item in IT is added to closure(IT ). then closure(IT ) is the set of items constructed from IT by the two rules: 1. Example 21 L(Gwcw ) = {wcw |w ∈ {a.5. if the index operation is for instance ¯: ι δ(A → α • Bβ. S → bS j 3. Gwcw = ({S. S → cR 6. R}. P ) and P is: 1. {a. R → Rb ¯ j The set of states for the grammar Gwcw should encode the possible configurations of the stack of indices as follows: . .6. ¯ Note that the two conditions of the Closure operation rule out the possible index operations δ and [δ] when the right-hand side of the production starts with a non-terminal. For CFG parsing (cf.

ιj ) in other words. j. The set I6 requires that the stack be empty. X) is the set of items that are valid for the viable prefix γX. X). the Goto function in the GIG case is a PDA and the set of viable prefixes with associated indices is a context-free language. if µ µ I is the set of items that are valid for some viable prefix γ. j.23: Set of States for Gwcw In the same way that the dot implies that some input symbols have been consumed. ιj ). #} # # S → c•R R → • Ra R → • Rb ¯ j ¯ i S → • aS S → • bS j S → • aS S → • bS j S → • bS j S → • cR I7 : I 11 : # # S → aS • j S → • cR I8 : I 12 : # # S → bS • j S → • cR I9 : I 13 : # # S → cR • j R→ • [#] R → R•a ¯ i R → R• b ¯ j R → Ra • ¯ i R → Rb • ¯ j Figure 5. #} {i. The operation goto(IT.3 The Goto Operation.ι). 5. s) is in IN . We will say an index i is in IN if (i. X. #} {i. IN ) is defined to be the pair (IT 2 .IN 2 ) where either 1 or 2 applies: . The CF function goto(IT. j. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS I1 : i S → a•S i i I2 : j S → b•S j i I3 : I4 : I5 : I6 : I 10 : {i. is defined to be the closure of the set of all items [A → αX • β] such that [A → α • Xβ] is in IT . The CF Goto function is a DFA transition function where IT is in the state set and X is in the vocabulary. X. then goto(I. Intuitively. where IT is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol. is the set of items that are valid of the viable prefix-index pairs (γX. the new sets I4 and I5 (as compared to context free sets) imply that an index i or j has been consumed from the stack. ι) = (I j . s) where i is an index symbol and s is a state defined by a set of items closure. We will describe the Goto function adding the possibility of computing the possible stack values of the PDA for each state.6. The GIG function Goto has three parameters a) IT is a set of items b) X is a grammar symbol and c) IN is a set of pairs (i. then goto(I. In the GIG case. if I is the set of items that are valid for some viable prefix-index pairs (γ.100 I0 : # S → •S S → • aS i CHAPTER 5.

IT i ) is in IN 2 .e. IN 3 ). IT 2 is the closure of the set of all items [A → αX • β] such that [A → α • Xβ] is in IT µ µ 101 and IN 2 is defined to be the set of indices with an associated state such that: Case A: α is and X is a terminal a (i. Case B: If X is a non-terminal B then IN 3 is in IN 2 such that [B → γ • ] is in (IT 3 . IT i ) in IN is in IN 2 The Goto function for the grammar Gwcw is depicted in figure 5. The construction of the collection of sets of items for a GIG grammar is made following the algorithm used for context free grammars.e. IN ) is defined to be: β] such that [A → α • Bβ] is in IT and δ is in IN and IN 2 is defined such that µ predecessor(δ. IT 2 ). The construction of an LR parsing table is shown in the following algorithm. the possible values are: a) pairs of shift action and operations on the auxiliary stack: push. ¯ indicates a pop. [A → αa • β] is in IT 2 ) µ When the second parameter of the Goto function is 2.6. LR PARSING FOR GILS 1. The indices associated in each state are those indices that are represented also in figure 5. (e. IT i ) in IN [B → [δ] • β] such that [A → α • Bβ] is in IT and δ is in IN and IN 2 is defined such that every µ (δ. µ In other words.24 with a PDA. IT i ) in IN is in IN 2 ¯ If µ is δ and δ is in IN then predecessor(δ. The action table has three parameters. the auxiliary stack has the configuration corresponding to the completed item B. state.23. [A → a • β] is in IT 2 ): µ If µ is δ in I then (δ. input (or ) and auxiliary stack.g.5.: i indicates a push. The first element of the pair is the symbol X and the second indicates the operation on the PDA stack (e. . . IT 2 ) is in IN 2 and IN is in predecessor(δ. If µ is then IN is in IN 2 If µ is [δ] and δ is in IN then every (δ. Case C: If α is not X is a terminal a then IN = IN 2 (i. [#] indicates a transition that requires an empty stack and indicates that i the content of the stack is ignored). [2]). IT 2 is the closure of the set of all items [B → ¯ δ • then goto(IT. IT i ) is in IN 2 for every (δ.g. The only changes are those made to the Closure and Goto operations as described above.

102 (a. annotated with indices for the grammar Gwcw pop or none. j ) (ε .[#]) # I6 (R. ε ) (b. ε ) # I9 Figure 5.j. ε) to I 1 to I 3 # I8 (ε .j.#) # I 10 to I 6 (a. ε ) (S.ε ) # I 13 (ε .j. b) reduce action (in this case no operation on the auxiliary stack is performed). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS (a. β is a possible empty sequence of non terminals and ¯ terminals.j) j I2 (a . ε ) i.# I5 (b.# I3 (ε . . B) denote non-terminals lower case letters (a) terminals. i ) (R. α is a non empty sequence of non terminals and terminals. The notation used is a follows: capital letters (A. ε) # I 12 ( ε. [δ].j) to I 2 to I 3 # I7 (c. j ) (ε . δ. i ) i. δ is an index and µ is either δ. ε ) (S. ε ) ( ε .j) (b. i ) (c.j ) ( ε.# I4 (R. ε ) (ε . The Goto table has the usual properties.#) # I 11 to I 6 i. and no operation on the auxiliary stack.i) # I0 i I1 CHAPTER 5.i) (b.24: Transition diagram for the PDA recognizing the set of valid prefixes. i) (c.

and δ is in IN i . adding the additional stack to compute the corresponding actions depicted in the table. Construct C = {I 0 . IN j ). b. and δ is in IN j . δ] to (“shift j”. δ] to (shift j. IN i ) = (I j .. h. If [A → α • aβ] is in I i and goto(I i . . If [A → β • ] is in I i . δ] to (shift j. IN j ). and δ is in IN i . IN j ). Output. If [A → • aβ] is in I i and goto(I i . e. If [A → • Bβ] is in I i and goto(I i . Here a must be a terminal. “pop δ”).-). ] to (“shift j”. IN i ) = (I j . a. then set action[i. LR PARSING FOR GILS 103 Algorithm 7 (Constructing an SLR parsing table) Input. we say the grammars is not SLR(1). “push δ”).. IN i ) = (I j . d.5. The goto transitions for state i are constructed for all non-terminals A using the rule: If goto(I i . #] to “accept” If any conflicting actions are generated by the above rules. then ¯ δ set action[i. 4. . The parsing actions for state i are determined as follows: a. f. ] to (“shift j”. a. IN i ) = (I j . a. “pop δ”). If [A → • aβ] is in I i and goto(I i . 3. IN i ) = (I j . the collection of sets of LR(0) items for G . . a. IN i ) = (I j . Here B must be a non-terminal. If [S → S • ] is in I i then set action[i. for every index in IN j . IN j ). IN j ). inj ] = j. where A may not be S . A. . I n }. State i is constructed from I i . a. Here a must be a terminal. then set action[i. -). a. a. Here B must be a non-terminal. An augmented GIG grammar G’. If [A → • aβ] is in I i and goto(I i . and δ is in IN i and IN j [δ] then set action[i. This table is used with an obvious extension of the context free algorithm. . -). . δ] to (“shift j”. then µ set action[i. IN i ) = (I j . If [A → • aβ] is in I i and goto(I i . i.. . but it is GLR(1). and δ is in IN i and IN j then [δ] set action[i.2.). then goto[i. I 1 . IN i ) = (I j . ] to “reduce A → α” for all a in µ µ FOLLOW(A). then ¯ δ set action[i. IN j ). If [A → • Bβ] is in I i and goto(I i . c. Here a must be a terminal and α must be non-empty.6. a. a. A. a. then δ set action[i. a. g. ] to (“shift j”. 2. IN j ). IN j ). $. the initial state of the parser is the one constructed from the set of items The output transition table for the grammar Gwcw is shown in figure 5. The SLR parsing table functions action and goto 1.

pop) (s4. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Action ( . pop) r6 r6 (s5. pop) (s6.#) ($.#) (R. pop) (s5. ) r6 r1 r2 r3 (s12.#) (s4.104 State CHAPTER 5. ) (s6. . p i) (b.j) ( . pop) (s5.#) 14 7 8 9 10 11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (a. (s3. ) (s6. ) ) ) ) ( . p i) (s1. ) (s1.2: Action/Goto Table for Gwcw The parsing algorithm for GIGs is essentially the same algorithm for CFGs. (s3. pop) (s4. The only difference is that it takes into account the operations on the auxiliary stack. ) (s13. p i) (s1. p j) (s2. p j) (s2. p j) (c. ) r4 r5 acc Table 5. We follow the notation from [2]. (s3. ) (s2.i) Goto (S.

a. . else if action [s. An input string w and an LR parsing action − goto table for a grammar G. ) then begin push a then s on top of the Stack1 advance ip to the next input symbol. advance ip to the next input symbol. Set ip to point to the first symbol of w$. (i ∪ )] = shift (s . a. a. else if action [s. Output. if action [s. Initiate Stack1 with s0 . push A then goto[s . Input. i] on top of Stack1 output the production A → β µ 105 else if action [s. repeat forever begin let s be the state on top of the Stack1 and i the symbol on top of the Stack2 a the symbol pointed by ip.6. . pop) then begin push a then s on top of the Stack1 pop i from Stack2 else if action [s. i] = shift (s . A. let s be the state now on top of the stack. i] = accept then return else error end The following table shows the moves of the LR parser on the input string abcab. a. Initiate Stack2 with #. LR PARSING FOR GILS Algorithm 8 (LR parsing for GIGs) . a parse for w otherwise an error indication. a. If w is in L(G). i] = reduce A → β then begin pop 2 ∗ |β| symbols from Stack1. i] = shift (s . pop) then begin push a then s on top of the Stack1 pop i from Stack2 advance ip to the next input symbol. else if action [s. (i ∪ )] = shift (s .5. pi )then begin push a then s on top of the Stack1 push i on top of Stack2 .

3: Trace of the LR-parser on the input abcab and grammar Gwcw .106 CHAPTER 5. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 13 14 15 16 Stack 1 0 0a1 0a1b2 0a1b2c3 0a1b2c35 0a1b2c354 0a1b2c3546 0a1b2c354R10 0a1b2c354R10a 0a1b2c35R11 0a1b2c35R11b 0a1b2c3R9 0a1b2S8 0a1S7 0S14 - Stack2 # #i #ij #ij #i #i # # # # # # # # # # Remaining input abcab$ bcab$ cab$ ab$ ab$ ab$ ab$ ab$ b$ b$ $ $ $ $ $ $ Comments Initial ID Shift and push Shift and push Shift Shift and Pop Shift and Pop Shift Reduce by 6 Shift Reduce by 4 Shift Reduce by 5 Reduce by 3 Reduce by 2 Reduce by 1 Accept Table 5.

107 . because they can produce dependent paths1 . They also offer additional descriptive power in terms of the structural descriptions they can generate for the same set of string languages. we review some of the abstract configurations that are argued for in [29]. at the same computational cost in terms of asymptotic complexity. In this section.Chapter 6 Applicability of GIGs 6. The goal of this section is to show how the properties of GILs are related to the peculiarities of the control device that regulates the derivation. GIGs offer additional descriptive power as compared to LIGs (and weakly equivalent formalisms) regarding the canonical NL problems mentioned above. the formalisms differ in the kid of trees they generate.1 Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Global Index Grammars (GIGs) Gazdar [29] introduces Linear Indexed Grammars and discusses their applicability to Natural Language problems. Similar approaches are also presented in [82] and [44] (see [56] concerning weak and strong generative capacity). His discussion is addressed not in terms of weak generative capacity but in terms of strong-generative capacity. However those dependent paths are not obtained by encoding the dependency in the path itself. Though this mechanism looks similar to the control device in Linear Indexed Grammars . 1 For the notion of dependent paths see for instance [82] or [44].

In other words. It is easy to see that no control substring obtained in a derivation subtree is necessarily in the control language. S.i] C [] push pop Figure 6. Gazdar suggests that the configuration in figure 6.g. but every substring encoded in a spine has to belong to the control set language..2 would be necessary to represent Scandinavian . w1 > . where G is a labeled grammar (cf. In other words. (we follow Gazdar’s notation: the leftmost element within the brackets corresponds to the top of the stack). B [. < an .2 and 6. G = (N. C). wn ∈ C}.. C): {w | S. wn >. the language {wwR |w ∈ Σ∗ }) only of the nested (center embedded) sort.1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs Every LIL can be characterized by a language L(G.1. and every possible spine is independent..108 CHAPTER 6. # ⇒ w.. P ).1 at the right.1.. as is depicted in the figure 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6. ai ∈ T ∪ { }.1: LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation 6. . CFGs cannot generate the structural descriptions depicted in figures 6.] B ∗ ∗ A B pop push C A [] B [.. [87]). the control strings wi are not necessarily connected to each other. We gave an alternative definition of the language of a GIG in chapter 5 to be the control language: L(G.3. w1 .. however those paths are connected transversely by the leftmost derivation order.. L.an | < S. δ is in C } ¯ C is defined to be the Dyck language over the alphabet I ∪ I (the set of stack indices and their complements).2 The palindrome language CFGs generate structural descriptions for palindrome languages (e.. Those control strings are encoded in the derivation of each spine as depicted in figure 6.1 at the left. T. Those control words describe the properties of a path (a spine) in the tree generated by the grammar G. #δ and w is in T ∗ . and C is a control set defined by a CFG (a Dyck language): {a1 . >⇒< a1 . the control of the derivation can be distributed over different paths.

.] a b c d d c b a Figure 6.c. A. The English adjective constructions that Gazdar uses to motivate the LIG derivation are generated by the following GIG grammar.6. Such an structure can be obtained using a GIG (and of course an LIG). b. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 109 [.3) cannot be generated by a GIG because it would require push productions with a non terminal in the first position of the right-hand side.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b.c.a] [a] [.a] [c. The corresponding structural description is shown in figure 6.b. in productions that are not in Greibach Normal Form).b.a] [c. In such structure the dependencies are introduced in the leftmost derivation order.3: Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR However GIGs generate a similar structural description as depicted in figure 6. A}.b.a] [d.2: A non context-free structural description for the language wwR unbounded dependencies.a] [a] [. (i. N P.a] [b.b.1. [.a] [b.. But the exact mirror image of that structure.] Figure 6.a] [c. ¯ Gadj = ({AP. {i.b.. (i.e. P ) where P is: AP → AP N P A→a i ¯ j ¯ AP → A A→c k ¯ ¯ A→AA NP → a NP ¯ i A→b j NP → b NP NP → c NP ¯ k .e. AP.a] [d. the structure of figure 6. c}. #.b.] [a] [b. {a.4 at the left..4: Example 22 (Comparative Construction) . j}.a] [c.

.a] [a] [.c.a] [d. On the other hand.b. [.a] [a] [b.5).b.] [b. However.] A [b.] AP AP AP [.b.b..] a A a b [..d] a [b..] [.a] c A A [a.c.b.a] [a. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [. but not the one at the right.a] [. a similar one can be obtained using the same strategy as we used with the comparative construction.b.] NP NP c NP [..c] [c.a] [b. The structural description at the left can be generated by a GIG. could .d] [c. as in the LIG case.] [a] a b c d [c.b.d] b [d] c d Figure 6..6 at the left.a] c d d a [b.5: Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language Gazdar further argues that the following tree structure.c.d] [c.c] NP [d..c] a b A c [c] b Figure 6.a] [c.c..1.3. shown in figure 6.] A NP b [c] [a] [b.4: GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR It should be noted that the operations on indices are reversed as compared to the LIG case shown in figure 6..] NP AP [.d] [d] [..a] [c. 6. The arrows show the leftmost derivation order that is required by the operations on the stack. the introduction of indices is dependent on the presence of lexical information and its transmission is not carried through a top-down spine.110 CHAPTER 6.3 The Copy Language Gazdar presents the following two possible LIG structural descriptions for the copy language (depicted in figure 6.c.b.] a b c d a b c d [b.

b.a] d c b [c.a] [a.a] [d. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 111 be more appropriate for some Natural Language phenomenon that might be modeled with a copy language.d] a b c d [c. where the arrows depict the leftmost derivation order.c.a] [a] [d.a] [c.b.d] [a.b.7.d] [] [d.b.a] [b.b.c.6 (right).a] [b. but can be generated by an IG.6 at the left either.b.d] [c.b.a] [c.c.b.b.6: An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language GIGs cannot produce the structural description of figure 6.b.a] [b.b.b. Such structure cannot be generated by a LIG.c.c.b.c.b.b.c.a] [d.b.d] [b.c.c.d] [b.a] [c.1.b.a] [a] [] [d.a] [a] a b a c [b.c.6. [] [a] [b.a] c [a] b [] a [d.c.b.b. but they can generate the one presented in the figure 6.a] [d.c.c.d] [a.a] a b c d [c.a] [c.d] b c [d] d [b. GIGs can also produce similar structural descriptions for the language of multiple copies (the language {ww+ | w ∈ Σ∗ } as shown in figure 6. [d] [c.a] [a] a [] b Figure 6.a] c d d [c.a] [b.a] ε a d [b.7: A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language .a] [c.a] [a] [a] [] [b. corresponding to the grammar shown in example 10.a] b c d ε a Figure 6.d] [d] [d.c.

as we show in figures 6. GIGs can generate the same structures as in 6.. {a.] [i.10 (at the right). L}. #..9: A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies GIGs can also produce other structures that cannot be produced by a LIG. [..8 and the somehow equivalent in 6. The corresponding structure is depicted in the figure 6.] c c Figure 6.8: LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies [..] c c b [i.. f }.i] [i] d [.i] [i] c c d [.9 (left).i] d [i] b c d a a [i] b b [. F. P ) where P is: .1.10 and 6.9 (right).i] [i.] [i.11.] d [.] [i] a a [i.] c [i] [i. The relevant structures that can be produced by a LIG are depicted in figures 6. R...] b Figure 6.] [i] [..112 CHAPTER 6. It is mentioned in [82] in relation to the definition of composition in [79] Categorial Grammars. e. Gsum = ({S.] [.i] d [i] b b [. L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}.8 and 6... APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6. Example 23 (Dependent branches) . The following language cannot be generated by LIGs. which permits composition of functions with unbounded number of arguments and generates tree sets with dependent paths. d. c. S.4 Multiple dependencies Gazdar does not discuss of the applicability of multiple dependency structures in [29].i] b [. {i}. b.

.] [i] a [..i] a b b c [i] [.5 Crossing dependencies Crossing dependencies in LIGs and TAGs have the same structural description as the copy language.i] b [i] [i] c [.] [i] a f [i.] c [i] a [i. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 113 S → aSf |R i R→F L|F |L F → b F c |b c ¯ i L → d L e |d e ¯ i The derivation of aabcdef f : #S ⇒ i#aSf ⇒ ii#aaSf f ⇒ ii#aaRf f ⇒ ii#aaF Lf f ⇒ i#aabcLf f ⇒ #aabcdef f [.i] f [. .i] a [i] [i] [i.1...] c [i.] [.] [.i] a c c [.1. GIGs can produce crossing dependencies with some alternative structures as depicted in the following structures.] d d ε b Figure 6.i] [i] a [i..] d [i] a c d b d e Figure 6..] [i.i] [i...10: GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies [.i] [i.i] [i.6.. The first example is generated by the grammars Gcr presented in Chapter 3 and repeated here.11: GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies 6.

CHAPTER 6.114 Example 24 (Crossing Dependencies) . c. C}. d}. e. g. #. m ≥ 1}. h}. y}. P ) and P is: S→AL A→aAf |aBf x B → b B e| b Ce x ¯ C → c C d| c d y L → g L h| g h y ¯ [i] a a b [ii] [i] [] e f f g g [k] h [] h b c [k] e d [kk] c d . The following kind of dependencies can be obtained: Example 25 (Crossing Dependencies 2) . L(Gcr8 ) = {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm | n. where Gcr = ({S. C}. S. b. b. B → b B | b x D→dD|d x ¯ [] [ii] [] a a a b [ii] b b [iii] [i] c [] c c d d d [i] [] Additional number of crossing dependencies can be obtained (pairs or triples). {a. #. d. {x}. B. {a. c. {x. A. where Gcr8 = ({S. f. P ) and P is: S→AD A→aAc|aBc 3. S. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS L(Gcr ) = {an bm cn dm | n. m ≥ 1}. B. A.

If an equivalence between LIGs and LIGs with push productions in GNF could be obtained. {a1 . C. b1 . Definition 14 A LIG is in push Greibach Normal Formal if every push production is in Greibach Normal Form (where A. In this section we are going to address the issue of whether LILs and GILs are comparable under set inclusion. a ∈ T and γ ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ : • A[. we could proceed as follows. Lcrm = {an am bn cn bm cm dm dn |n. b2 . c1 .. related to the operation of generalized composition in CCGs. d2 }. A. c2 . Our conjecture is that LILs are properly included in GILs.i] γ . A2 . S. #. P ) and P is: S→AL x ¯ A → a1 A B 1 | a1 A2 B 1 L2 → C D A2 → a2 A2 y y ¯ B 1 → b B| b x L → c1 L d1 | c1 L2 d1 D → d2 d2 y ¯ C → b2 C C 2 | b2 C 2 C 2 → c2 C 2 y The derivation of a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 c2 c2 c2 d2 d2 d2 d1 d1 S ⇒ AL ⇒ #a1 AB 1 L ⇒ #a1 a1 A2 B 1 B 1 L ⇒ yyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 B 1 B 1 L ⇒ xxyyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 L ⇒ yyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 CDd1 d1 ⇒ #a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 C 2 C 2 C 2 Dd1 d1 ⇒ yyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 c2 c2 Dd1 d1 ⇒ #a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 c2 c2 c2 d2 d2 d2 d1 d1 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 6.2 Set Inclusion between GIGs and LIGs The last section showed similarities and differences between LIGs and GIGs in terms of the structural descriptions. D.. a2 . B ∈ N. {x.6. y}. d1 . SET INCLUSION BETWEEN GIGS AND LIGS 115 Such structures might be relevant to be able to generate the following language(discussed in [86]). L. m ≥ 1} 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 The language Lcrm is generated by the following GIG: Example 26 (Crossing Dependencies 3) . L2 }. LIGs and Greibach Normal Form The definition of GIGs requires push productions in Greibach Normal Form.] → a B[. B. Gcrm = ({S.2.

Let A[. I. Let G1 = (N ∪ {B}.4 in [41] as follows also holds for LIGs and it would allow to transform left recursion into right recursion..3 in [41].γ r ]αr be the set of A-productions for which A is the leftmost symbol of the right hand side.γ i ] → β i B[. 6.] → B[]α be a production in P and B[.γ 2 ]α2 | · · · |A[. A similar lemma for CFGs is lemma 4. A[.2. S) be a LIG.. P 1. This is easy to prove.] → [.γ i ] → β i . from a LIG derivation to a GIG derivation and the equivalence is easy obtained.. I ∪ {γ }. S) be obtained from G by deleting the production A → Bα2 from P and adding the productions A → β 1 α2 |β 2 α2 |β r α2 . Let G1 = (N. Let G = (N.γ i ] → αi B[. GILs contain languages which are proven not to be in the LIL set. Therefore. Then L(G) = L(G1 ).γ i ] → β 1 |β 2 | · · · |β s be the remaining A−productions. The proof of this lemma holds for the GIG case because there is no stack information affected... the proper inclusion of LILs in GILs would be obtained: • For any LIG there is an equivalent LIG in push-Greibach Normal Formal.. Let A[. Lemma 10 Define an A − production to be a production with variable A on the left..]β 1 |β 2 | · · · |β r be the set of all B-productions (they do not affect the stack). P. as long as the left recursion involves the whole spine. T.. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS Lemma 9 For any LIG in push-Greibach Normal Formal there is an Equivalent GIG that generates the same language. S) be a LIG. T.1 LIGs in push-Greibach Normal Form We can apply the techniques for left recursion elimination used in the conversion to Greibach Normal Form in CFGs.. index γ to I and replacing the A−productions by the productions: A[.] such that 1 ≤ i ≤ r .γ i ] → αi . The following lemma applies to productions that do not carry stack information.. I.] such that 1 ≤ i ≤ s B[. P.] → A[. S) be the LIG formed by adding the variable B to N .. Let A[.γ 1 ]α1 |A[. However we show in the next section that such a claim does not seem to hold. An adaptation of the lemma 4. just a change in the interpretation of the derivation. Lemma 11 Let G = (N. T.116 CHAPTER 6.. if a lemma such as the following statement could be proved. I.. P. T.. B[.

c.b.d] b [d] c d Figure 6.] [a] a b c d [c.c.b. without some mayor changes in the mapping algorithm. [.a] [c.c.c.a] [c. because it would need some additional changes.a] [a] [.] [b.b.a] [b. There is no way that a LIG like the one generating the three dependencies could be transformed into a LIG in push-GNF.a] [d.a] [d.c.d] [c.a] [c..] [.] a b c d a b c d [b..12 involving the palindrome language would be obtained.b.b.2.b..a] [a.] [.. .6.a] [d.a] [c.b.14 would require even more additional machinery.d] a [b.a] [b.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b.c.a] [b.a] [a] a b c d d c b a Figure 6.] [a] [b.d] [c. such as index renaming: [.b.b.d] [d] [.12: Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs The previous lemma would not work in the following structure..13: Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs.. SET INCLUSION BETWEEN GIGS AND LIGS 117 In this way..a] [c.a] [a] [.b. second case The structures depicted in figure 6. the equivalence of the structures in figure 6.

. However.] c c d CHAPTER 6. They are however generated by GIGs as shown in figure 6.118 [. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [.] [i] b [i...14: LIGs not in push-GNF I Moreover some additional problems arise as in the following languages: {w1 w2 w1 w2 R |wi ∈ Σ∗ } {w1 w2 w2 w1 R |wi ∈ Σ∗ } which can be depicted by the following structures: push push push b1 b2 a1 push push push a2 b3 push a3 push push a1 a2 b1 b2 push push pop pop pop pop push a3 a3 a2 a1 pop b3 pop b3 b2 b1 pop pop pop b3 b 2 a3 a2 pop pop b1 a1 Figure 6.] [i] [i. this alternative . both right and left) for push productions.15: LIGs not in push-GNF II These languages do not seem to be obtainable with a LIG in push-GNF.i] [i] [.i] d [i] b b [.] c c d d b Figure 6.e.. The problem is that they require the two directions of recursion (i.16 It seems that some of the above-mentioned issues would still arise if we try to obtain the inclusion of LILs by simulating either an EPDA or Becker’s 2-SA with a LR-2PDA.

There has been some work compiling HPSGs into TAGs (cf.3 GIGs and HPSGs We showed in the last section how GIGs can produce structural descriptions similar to those of LIGs.3. One of the motivations was the potential to improve the processing efficiency of HPSG. different derivations . [39]) to allow to push/pop several symbols from the stack. and others which are beyond the descriptive power of LIGs and TAGs. we will show how the structural descriptive power of GIGs is not only able to capture those phenomena but also additional structural descriptions compatible with those generated by HPSGs [61] schemata.2 were correlated to the use of the SLASH feature in GPSGs and HPSGs. We will introduce informally some slight modifications to the operations on the stacks performed ¯ by a GIG. This follows from the ability of GIGs to capture dependencies through different paths in the derivation. This does not change the power of the formalism. Those structural descriptions corresponding to figure 6. Such compilation process allowed the identification of significant parts of HPSG grammars that were mildly context-sensitive. We will allow the productions of a GIG to be annotated with finite strings in I ∪ I instead of single symbols. It is a standard change in PDAs (cf. 6.16: LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs should be considered in detail. In this section. [8]). GIGS AND HPSGS 119 pop pop push b pop push 1 a1 a2 b2 push pop pop a3 pop b3 a3 a2 a1 push b 3 push b 2 push b1 Figure 6. [48]. by performing HPSG derivations at compile time. Therefore.6. Also the symbols will be interpreted relative to the elements in the top of the stack (as a Dyck set).

HEAD 1 SUBJ < > H SUBJ 2 1 HEAD SUBJ < 2 > Figure 6. The arrows indicate how the transmission of features is encoded in the leftmost derivation order. This is exemplified with the productions X → x and X → x. in particular in the first three cases where nv ¯ [n]v different actions are taken (the actions are explained in the parenthesis) : nnδ#wXβ ⇒ vnδ#wxβ (pop n and push v) nv ¯ n¯δ#wXβ ⇒ δ#wxβ v nv ¯ (pop n and v ) vnδ#wXβ ⇒ v¯ vnδ#wxβ (push n and v) nδ#wXβ ⇒ ¯ n ¯ nv ¯ [n]v vnδ#wxβ ( check and push) We exemplify how GIGs can generate similar structural descriptions as HPSGs do in a very oversimplified and abstract way. Head-Subj-Schema Figure 6. an how the elements contained in the stack can be correlated to constituents or lexical items (terminal symbols) in a constituent recognition process.120 CHAPTER 6.17 depicts the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Subject Schema in HPSG [61].18 shows an equivalent structural description corresponding to the GIG productions and derivation shown in the next example (which might correspond to an intransitive verb).17: Head-Subject Schema 2 2 33 HEAD 1 6 77 6 6 6 77 6 6 77 6 S 6 L | C 6SUBJ 6 77 6 6 4 55 6 4 6 3 6 COMPS 6 2 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 HEAD DTR 6 S | L | 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 6D 6 6 6 6 6 6 6   4 4 COMP-DTR S 2 2 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 3337 7 HEAD 1 77 7 6  7777 6 77 6 7777 6SUBJ 2 7777 6 7777 4 5577 77 COMPS 3 77 77 55 (1) Figure 6. Example 27 (intransitive verb) XP → Y P XP XP → X YP →Y X→x nv ¯ Y →y n . APPLICABILITY OF GIGS might be produced using the same production. We will ignore many details and try give an rough idea on how the transmission of features can be carried out from the lexical items by the GIG stack. according to what is on the top of the stack. obtaining very similar structural descriptions.

6.] X x Figure 6.19 shows the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Complement schema in HPSG.] XP [v. 3 57 5 4 COMP-DTR S 4 2 2 33 3 2 > C n-2 3 n H C HEAD 1 COMP < 2 1 .18: Head-Subject in GIG format #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ #yXP ⇒ n#Y XP ⇒ n#yX ⇒ v#yx Head-Comps-Schema HEAD COMP 1 < 2 HEAD 1 6 77 7 6 6 7 6 S 4 L | C 4SUBJ 2 55 7 6 7 6 COMPS 3 6 2 2 2 3337 7 6 HEAD 1 7 6 6 6 6 6 7777 6 6 HEAD DTR 4 S | L | 4SUBJ 2 5577 6D 6 77 6 4 COMPS union 4 .] 121 YP [n. 3 n > Figure 6. The following GIG productions generate the structural description corresponding to figure 6.. corresponding to the deriva- .21.] y [v....19: Head-Comps Schema tree representation Figure 6.] Y [n.20. XP → X CP The derivation: CP → Y CP X → x nv n ¯ ¯ CP → Y →y n n#XP ⇒ n#XCP ⇒ nv#xCP ⇒ nv#xY CP ⇒ v#xyCP ⇒ v#xy ¯ ¯ The productions of example 29 (which uses some of the productions corresponding to the previous schemas) generate the structural description represented in figure 6... GIGS AND HPSGS [. where the initial configuration of the stack is assumed to be [n]: Example 28 (transitive verb) .] XP [v.3.

122 [n] CHAPTER 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS XP [ v ] X [n v] [n v] CP [ v ] Y [v] CP x y ε Figure 6. We show the contents of the stack when each lexical item is introduced in the derivation. XP → Y P XP CP → Y P CP X → know nv ¯¯ n XP → X CP X → hates nv n ¯ ¯ nv¯ ¯ v XP → X XP CP → X → claims Y P → Kim|Sandy|Dana|we A derivation of ‘Kim we know Sandy claims Dana hates’: #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ n#Kim XP ⇒ n#Kim Y P XP ⇒ nn#Kim we XP ⇒ nn#Kim we X XP ⇒ v n#Kim we know XP ⇒ ¯ v n#Kim we know Y P XP ⇒ ¯ n¯n#Kim we know Sandy XP ⇒ v n¯n#Kim we know Sandy X XP ⇒ v v n#Kim we know Sandy claims XP ⇒ ¯ v n#Kim we know Sandy claims Y P XP ⇒ ¯ n¯n#Kim we know Sandy claims Dana XP ⇒ v #Kim we know Sandy claims Dana hates Finally the last example and figure 6.22 shows how coordination combined with SLASH can be encoded by a GIG.20: Head-Comp in GIG format tion given in example 29. ∗ . Example 29 (SLASH in GIG format) .

6. GIGS AND HPSGS [] 123 XP YP [n] [n] Kim YP [nn] we XP XP X [vn] know YP [nvn] Sandy XP XP X XP [vn] claims YP [nvn] Dana [] hates XP X CP ε Figure 6. XP → Y P XP CP → Y P CP X → talk to nv n ¯ ¯ XP → X CP CP → C → and X → did nv ¯¯ XP → X XP X → visit [n¯n]c v CXP → XP CXP Y P → W ho|you n CXP → C XP A derivation of ‘Who did you visit and talk to’: #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ n#W ho XP ⇒ n#W ho Y P XP ⇒ v n#W ho did XP ⇒ ¯ v n#W ho did Y P XP ⇒ n¯n#W ho did you CXP ⇒ ¯ v n¯n#W ho did you XP CXP ⇒ v cn¯n#W ho did you visit CXP ⇒ v cn¯n#W ho did you visit C XP ⇒ v n¯n#W ho did you visit and XP ⇒ v ∗ .3.21: SLASH in GIG format Example 30 (SLASH and Coordination2) .

124 #W ho did you visit and talk to XP CHAPTER 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [] YP [n] Who X [nv] did XP XP YP [nvn] you XP [cnvn] visit ε CXP CXP C [ n v n ] XP [] [ n v n] and talk to CP ε Figure 6.22: SLASH and coordination in GIG format .

We introduced trGIGs (and sLR-2PDAs) which are more restricted than GIGs. We conjectured that trGIGs are not able to capture reduplication phenomena. corresponds to the ability of GIGs to 125 . time-complexity and space complexity properties. We showed u the descriptive power of GIGs regarding the three phenomena concerning natural language context sensitivity: reduplication. We analyzed the algorithm providing an account of grammar-size. We presented a Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger representation theorem for GILs. However we did not discuss the (possible) equivalence of sLR-2PDAs and trGIGs. GILs and their properties. An Earley type algorithm for the recognition problem of GILs was presented with a bounded polynomial time result O(n6 ) and O(n4 ) space. multiple agreements and crossed agreements. it might be difficult to prove it. We have shown that GIGs generate structural descriptions for the copy and multiple dependency languages which can not be generated by LIGs.Chapter 7 Conclusions and Future Work We have presented LR-2PDAS. Finally. GIGs. or it might not be the case and both languages turn out to be incomparable. The proof of correctness of this algorithm was also presented using the Parsing Schemata framework. The strong similarity between GIGs and LIGs suggests that LILs might be included in GILs. We also showed that both the weak and the strong descriptive power of GIGs is beyond LIGs. A proof of semilinearity showed that GILs share mildly context sensitive properties. we have shown also that the extra power that characterizes GIGs. and that are more limited regarding crossed agreements. However. We presented a comparison of the structural descriptions that LIGs and GIGs can be generate. We showed the equivalence of LR-2PDA and GIGs.

We mention now some of the issues that might be addressed in future research. They seem to be a proper subset of GILs and they also seem to be closed under complementation (which could be proved following the proof for CFLs). the proof should be considered in detail. we did not explore the properties of the class of deterministic GILs. We also mentioned the issue of ambiguity and we defined GILs with deterministic indexing. and we gave an algorithm to parse LR(k) GILs. coupled context-free grammars among other formalisms. which follows as a corollary from the semi-linearity property. The similarity of GIGs and counter automata. however it is not clear to us if such a pumping lemma would provide an additional tool beyond the result already obtained on semilinearity. A candidate pumping lemma for GILs was suggested. however there are other variations on Earley’s algorithm that were not considered and that might improve the impact of the grammar size on the parsing . We have shown also that those non-local relationships which are usually encoded in HPSGs as feature transmission can be encoded in GIGs using its stack. We defined deterministic LR-2PDAs and deterministic GILs. Although they do seem to be. We gave an Earley algorithm for GIGs . should be addressed. In this case. We have not addressed most of the decision problems. We have established some coarse-grain relations with other families of languages (CFLs and CSLs). 7. The relationships between GILs LILs and ILs is still an open question.126 CHAPTER 7.1 Future Work The results described in the previous section are encouraging enough to continue further work concerning Global Index Languages. and the membership problem. except the emptiness problem. it is harder to determine whether GILs with deterministic indexing are a proper subset of the Global Index Languages. this class might not have any theoretical import besides the fact that the recognition problem is in O(n3 ). CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK generate dependent paths without copying the stack but distributing the control in different paths through the leftmost derivation order. however. exploiting the ability of GIGs to encode dependencies through connected dependent paths and not only through a spine. However. GILs and GCSLs are incomparable but trGILs might be a properly included in GCSLs.

7.1. FUTURE WORK

127

complexity. There are also some details on the introduction of indices which would improve its performance. Another alternative to be considered is extension of the LR(k) algorithm to generalized LR(k) ` la Tomita. If a Chomsky Normal Form for GILs is obtainable, a CYK bottom-up algorithm a could be considered. We considered some of the issues related to Natural Language from a formal and abstract point of view, i.e. language sets and structural descriptions. In the same perspective it might be interesting to see if GILs are able to describe some phenomena that are beyond mildly-context sensitive power (e.g. scrambling). Also, we only compared GILs with LIGs; there are other formalisms to be considered. Minimalist Grammars [78] share some common properties with GILs. It would be interesting to determine if minimalist grammars can be compiled into GILs. In the area of practical applications, it would be interesting to implement the HPSG compilation ideas. Another relevant question is how much of TAG systems can be compiled into GIGs and how do the performances compare. It should be noted that the capabilities of TAGs to define extended domains of locality might be lost in the compilation process. We mentioned in the introduction some of the approaches to use generative grammars as models of biological phenomena. The capabilities of GIGs to generate the multiple copies language (or multiple repeats in the biology terminology) as well as crossing dependencies (or pseudo-knots) might be used in the computational analysis of sequence data.

128

CHAPTER 7. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK

Bibliography
[1] A. V. Aho. Indexed grammars - an extension of context-free grammars. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 15(4):647–671, 1968. [2] A. V. Aho, R. Sethi, and J. D. Ullman. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools. AddisonWesley, Reading, MA, 1986. [3] M. A. Alonso, D. Cabrero, and M. Vilares. Construction of efficient generalized LR parsers. In Derick Wood and Sheng Yu, editors, Automata Implementation, volume 1436, pages 7–24. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1998. [4] M. A. Alonso, E. de la Clergerie, J. Gra˜a, and M. Vilares. New tabular algorithms for LIG n parsing. In Proc. of the Sixth Int. Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT’2000), pages 29–40, Trento, Italy, 2000. [5] J. Autebert, J. Berstel, and L. Boasson. Context-free languages and pushdown automata. In A. Salomaa and G. Rozenberg, editors, Handbook of Formal Languages, volume 1, Word Language Grammar, pages 111–174. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997. [6] G. Barton, R. Berwick, and E. Ristad. Computational Complexity and Natural Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987. [7] T. Becker. HyTAG: a new type of Tree Adjoining Grammars for Hybrid Syntactic Representation of Free Order Languages. PhD thesis, University of Saarbruecken, 1993. [8] T. Becker and P. Lopez. Adapting HPSG-to-TAG compilation to wide-coverage grammars. In Proceedings of TAG+5, pages 47–54. 2000.

129

In Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science.130 BIBLIOGRAPHY [9] R. volume 900. Boullier. 1998. Buntrock and K. 2003. Rocquencourt. [12] P. Confluent and other types of thue systems. Growing context sensitive languages and church-rosser languages. GIGs: Restricted context-sensitive descriptive power in bounded polynomial-time. A generalization of mildly context-sensitive formalisms. January 1999. n Santa Barbara. [14] G. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science. n In Proc. Buntrock and K. 1994. In Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. 29:171–182. 1995. Languages and Programming. Philadelphia. Weakly growing context-sensitive grammars. 14 pages. 1996. Mexico City. J. In In Proceeding of CIAA 2003. pages 53–64. INRIA. [13] G. France. of Cicling 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Casta˜o. Research Report RR-3614. Otto. Trento. On the applicability of global index grammars. In Sandra K n ubler Kotaro Funakoshi and Jahna Otterbacher. and range concatenation grammars. Buntrock and F. mix. Lorys. [17] J.. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT2000). February 2000. 2003. editors. 2003. pages 15–22. Chinese numbers. Lorys. 1982. In TAG Workshop. The variable membership problem: Succinctness versus complexity. Niemann. [19] J. On growing context-sensitive languages. Casta˜o. Mach. [10] P.. February 16-22. Italy. Comput. In Automata. 1992. Casta˜o. Range concatenation grammars. [15] G. [18] J. Boullier. [11] P. Proceedings of the ACL-2003 Student ¨ Research Workshop. . Buntrock and G. pages 77–88. Boullier. pages 595–606.CA. Assoc. LR Parsing for Global Index Languages (GILs). scrambling. Book. [16] G.

1997. and A. Casta˜o. Sch¨tzenberger. Applicability of indexed grammars to natural languages. Computer Programming and Formal Systems. Culy. Vol. 2. L. and S. Indiana. [22] N.BIBLIOGRAPHY 131 [20] J. Multipushdown languages and grammars. In Colloquium on Trees in Algebra and Programming. Regulated Rewriting in Formal Language Theory. 1986. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science. editors. In u P. 8:345–351. pages 69–94. Salomaa. The Mathematical Theory of Context Free Languages. New York. Cherubini. K. In G. P˘un. Dahlhaus and M. 1963. Amsterdam. Breveglieri. Pitsch G. pages 85–99. [29] G. [26] J. editors. Berlin. Hirschberg. MOL 8. 7(3):253–292. [23] C. Dordrecht. 1966. 1970. Handbook of Formal Languages. Chomsky and M. D. Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories. Berlin. editors. C. a Heidelberg. [25] J. 1988. The Netherlands. Gazdar. An Efficient Context-free Parsing Algorithm. Reidel. of Mathematics of Language. Communications of the ACM. n Proc. Springer. [27] J. Rogers. Springer. Sci. Reyle and C. 2003b. Grammars with controlled derivations. In U. 1989. 1996. Dassow. Linguistics and Philosophy. Comp. [30] S. North-Holland. Theor. 13:94– 102. Citrini. Warmuth. Mc Graw Hill. Braffort and D. Salomaa. G. The complexity of the vocabulary of bambara. Membership for growing context sensitive grammars is polynomial.-P. In R. 1996. . New York. P˘un. Dassow and G.. pages 118–161. Oehrle and J. Earley. June. [28] G. The algebraic theory of context-free languages. pages 205– 233. Bloomington. On parsing coupled-context-free languages. 1985. Rozenberg a and A. editors. Global index grammars and descriptive power. Rohrer. Hotz. Reghizzi. [24] E. [21] A. Ginsburg.

Tokio. In IWPT 2000. 1995. MA. 1978. O. Ginsburg and E. sequences. J. Berling. Literal movement grammars. 1968. 1979. [33] S. 1971. Groenink. 4(3):429–453. Ibarra. languages: where computer science. . [36] K. Springer. Introduction to Formal Language Theory. page 22. Bulletin of Mathematical Biology. Reversal-bounded multicounter machines and their decision problems. ISSN 0169-118X. H. Karhum¨ki. 25(1):116–133. Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica (CWI). Formal language theory and dna: An analysis of the generative capacity of specific recombinant behaviors. Spanier. Ibarra. Reading. Ginsburg and M. [32] S. Decision questions concerning semilinearity. Inc. Dublin. In Martin-Vide and V. [34] A. [42] O.. 1978. A recognizer for minimalist grammars. 15. Finite-turn pushdown automata. H. [37] T. Harkema. Mild context-sensitivity and tuple-based generalizations of context-free grammar. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery. H. [39] M. One-way nondeterministic real-time list-storage. In LNCS 2076. Groenink. [35] A. Head. Ginsburg and E. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 2000. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Harju. and A. 1987. Mitrana. biology and linguistics meet. 5(4):365–396. Ullman. New York. Languages. Spanier. Addison-Wesley. pages 737–759. Reading. editors. Introduction to Automata Theory. Salomaa. E. regular and context-free selectors. 2000. Parsing contextual grammars with linear. In 104. SIAM Journal on Control. In Proceedings of the 7th EACL Conference. AFL with the semilinear property. [40] T. [38] H.132 BIBLIOGRAPHY [31] S. 2001. 30 1996. 3:428–446. a morphisms and commutation of languages. Springer. Harrison. page 579ff. [41] J. and Computation. Words. Harbush. H. 1966. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. University College. No. Massachusetts. Journal of the ACM (JACM). Harrison. 1995.

2001. pages 206– 250. Vijay-Shanker. [46] A. Weir. and A. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Grammars. Mass. Compilation of HPSG into TAG. Journal of Computer and System Sciences. Tree adjoining grammars: How much context-sensitivity is required to provide reasonable structural description? In D. Karttunen.. Chicago University Press. Kiefer. K. 1974. In G. 2001. K. pages 31–81. Foundational issues in natural language processing. 1991. computational and theoretical perspectives. Languages and Programming. Sewing contexts and mildly context-sensitive languages. [50] Dan Klein and Christopher D. Schabes. Joshi. Lang. France. Saarbr¨cken. Dowty. and Thomas Wasow. TUCS Technical Report No. MIT Press. B. u [52] Carlos Mart´ ın-Vide and et al. In Automata. L. Handbook of Formal Languages. MA. 1974. 1997. [45] A. The convergence of mildly context-sensitive grammatical formalisms. Joshi. and D. A. 1995. Joshi. Netter. pages 107–114. pages 92–99. Khabbaz. editors. Stuart Shieber. A geometric hierarchy of languages. [48] R. Salomaa. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+5). pages 85–137. Vijay-Shanker. Deterministic techniques for efficient non-deterministic parsers. New York. 2000. Manning. In Peter Sells. [47] Laura Kallmeyer. Local tree description grammars: A local extension of tag allowing underspecified dominance relations. volume 14 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. [51] B. 1985. Relationship between strong and weak generative power of formal systems. [44] A. Tree-adjoining grammars. March 1999. 8(2):142–157. editors. Vol. Natural language processing: psycholinguistic. Cambridge. Springer. [49] N. Kasper.BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 [43] A. Parsing and hypergraphs. 2nd Colloquium. Joshi and Y. 257. Zwicky. and K. pages 255–269. Cambridge. editors. Paris. . Rozenberg and A. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies. 3. Berlin.

[56] P. 1994. Tree-adjoining language parsing in o(n6 ) time. Universidade da Coru˜a. 1999.A. pages 243–257. [55] J. [58] F. University of Chicago Press. In Christian Retor´. Kracht. Pollard and I. Rajasekaran. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. 1998. RTA-99. editor. 1999. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structure. On the connections between rewriting and formal language theory. [57] G. USA. University of Pennsylvania. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. .134 [53] R. n [60] Rohit J. Parikh. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery. [59] M. Stanford University. Trento. 1997. 2000. Strong Generative Capacity. Michaelis. Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. Otto. 1998. A. SIAM J. e LACL’96: First International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Miller. Alonso Pardo. Italy. Michaelis and M. of Computation. Springer-Verlag. Springer-Verlag. Chicago. [63] O. In Rewriting Techniques and Applications: 10th International Conference. 1994. 25. 13:570–581. CSLI Publications. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. BIBLIOGRAPHY In Jewels are Forever. 1996. PhD thesis. Otto. pages [54] J. Sag. PhD thesis. Philadelphia. LACL’98. [62] S. McNaughton. The church-rosser languages are the deterministic variants of the growing context-sensitive languages. [61] C. An insertion into the chomsky hierarchy? 204–212. LNCS 1631. Grenoble. On context-free languages. Rambow. Niemann and F. In Proceedings of Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Berlin. Interpretaci´n Tabular de Aut´matas para lenguajes de Adjunci´n de o o o ´ Arboles. IL. Stanford CA. pages 329–345. Dept of CIS. 1999. 1966.

199(1–2):87–103. 1995. In L. Shieber. [67] G. 20:91–124. M. pages 334–340. Martin-Vide. and T. Paun S. Computational Linguistics. Fujii. pages 2053–2068. 1999. [76] K. 1998. Bioinformatics. Mol Biol. 24(1 and 2):73–102.M. Shieber and Y. and F. Searls. 1995. Theoretical Computer. . 8:333–343. 1998. Tree-adjoining grammar parsing and boolean matrix multiplication. 24:3–36. Eddy. [66] Gh. A dynamic programming algorithm for rna structure prediction including pseudoknots. pages 191–229. Journal of Logic Programming. [71] H. pages 47–120. 2000.R. Eddy. [72] S. 1997. Rivas and S. page 117ff. Seki. C. Parsing schemata. The computational linguistics of biological sequences. Science. Sikkel. Schabes. Y. No. String variable grammar: A logic grammar formalism for the biological language of DNA. 1999.B. Journal of Logic Programming. [74] S. Satta. [69] D. AAAI Press. Computational Linguistics. Sikkel. Shieber. pages 245–274. [73] S. [70] D.M. [65] E. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Springer-Verlag. Principles and implementation of deductive parsing. J. 1991. [68] D.B. Searls. 1994. Parsing schemata and correctness of parsing algorithms. Computational linguistics.BIBLIOGRAPHY 135 [64] E. editor. 20. Kasami.R. 1993. DIMACS Series in Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science. Schabes. Pereira. T. Rivas and S. 2. Hunter. Linguistics and Philosophy. Formal language theory and biological macromolecules. Artificial Intelligence and Molecular Biology. Matsumura. 1985. B. [75] K. Marcus. The language of rna: A formal grammar that includes pseudoknots. 1994. Searls. Contextual grammars as generative models of natural languages. Theoretical Computer Science. An alternative conception of tree-adjoining derivation. On multiple context-free grammars.

Joshi. Sipser. 104(2):235–261. 1992. Workman. of the 25th ACL. PWS Publishing Company. Information and Control. pages 11–14. [85] Ch. 1998. Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. 1998. Theoretical Computer Science. 1987. 1997. A. 1997. pages 259–269. 32 No. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. [79] M. Steedman. J. pages 1333–1339. 1988. Derivational minimalism. A. pages 104–111. P. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL ’98). An efficiente augmented-context-free parsing algorithm. A. Grammars. [88] D. Wartena. Grenoble. Information and Control. A geometric hierarchy beyond context-free languages. Grammars with composite storages. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of dutch and english. 1976. D. PhD thesis. 1985.136 BIBLIOGRAPHY [77] M. Wartena. [84] C. 2:188–200. Massachusetts. Pardo. On the concatenation of one-turn pushdowns. [87] D. Weir. [81] E. A tabular interpretation of a class of 2-stack automata. 1970. J. 1999. [78] E. [83] D. V. Weir. de la Clergerie and M. Language. 17:41–61. Deterministic context-sensitive languages: Part II. Boston. CA. 13:31–46. [86] D. and A. Walters. Weir. Turn-bounded grammars and their relation to ultralinear languages. pages 523–568. Lecture notes in computer science. In Proc. Vijay-Shanker. Computational linguistics. University of Pennsylvania. In COLING-ACL. [82] K. Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. 1328. 1987. Stanford. [80] M. Stabler. K. Tomita. .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful