This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

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 .

.

vii . A la Pipi y su gran amor. Rodr´ ıguez. que ser´ en vano a S. no lo emprendas. 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.

.

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

.

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

.

. . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . xiii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Global Index Grammars 3. . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . .2. . . . . .1 GILs. . . . . .4 Examples of LR-2PDAs . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . 2. . . 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. . . . . 4. 3. . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Deterministic LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. . . . . . . .2 Left Restricted 2 Stack Push Down Automatas (LR-2PDAs) .2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack . .1 Automata with two Stacks . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . PDA and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . .3 GILs and Dyck Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . 4. . . . .1 Relations to other families of languages . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . .2 Outline of the Thesis and Description of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Our proposal . . . . . . . . .2 GIGs examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Determinism in LR-2PDA . . . . .2 Closure Properties of GILs . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . .1 Natural Language . . . . . . . . . .4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs . .1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines . . . . .3 Comparison with TM. . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . .Contents vii Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures 1 Introduction 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Global Index Grammars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . .3 Semilinearity of GILs and the Constant Growth property 4. . . . . . 2. . . . .2 Biology and the Language of DNA . .1 trGIGS . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . ﬁnite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs . . . . . . . .1. . .1 Indexed Grammars and Linear Indexed Grammars 3. . . . . .

. . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The Goto Operation. . . . 98 .3 The Copy Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 . . . .2 The palindrome language . . . .1. . .6. .1 Graph-structured Stacks . .5 Derivation order and Normal Form . . .2 The Closure Operation. . . . . 7 Conclusions and Future Work 125 7. . . . . . . . . . .4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: ﬁnal version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 LR parsing for GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 xiv . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Complexity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . .2. . . . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. .6. . . . . .1 Overview . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . 5. . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . 5. . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 . . . . . . .1.1 LIGs in push-Greibach Normal Form . . . . 83 . . . . . . . .4. . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Parsing Schemata for GIGs . . 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Control Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2. 5.2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 .3. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . 52 . . . . . . .4 Multiple dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 . . . . . . . . 100 . . . . . .2. . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . .3 GIGs and HPSGs . . . .2 Set Inclusion between GIGs and LIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . 5. .2 Parsing Schemata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . GILs. . . . . . 107 107 108 108 110 112 113 115 116 119 6 Applicability of GIGs 6.4 Proof of the Correctness of the Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Crossing dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . 80 . .4. . . . 5.1 Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Global Index Grammars (GIGs) 6. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Earley Algorithm. . . . . .2 Time and Space Complexity . . . . . . . 6.1 Future Work . .3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 LR items and viable preﬁxes . . . . . . . . . .2 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . .1. . . . . 48 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. . . . . . . . 52 . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Completer E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Set of States for Gwcw . . . . . . . 69 Completer D . . . .24 6. . . . . . . . . . .9 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language . . . . .19 5. . . . . . . . . . . annotated with indices for the grammar Gwcw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Transition diagram for the PDA recognizing the set of valid preﬁxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . sLR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 5. .21 5. . . . 58 i Push and Pop moves on diﬀerent spines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Ambiguity on diﬀerent spines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) A Turing Machine . . . . .1 2. . A PDA . . .1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5.8 5. . . . . .5 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA . . . .10 5. . . . . . . . . . 62 i A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . 60 Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. .14 5. . . . .15 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 15 15 17 17 18 Two graph-structured stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 GIG invariant . . . . . . . . . . 73 Earley CFG invariant . . 59 A complete steps in the graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 5. .2 2. . . 60 Two alternative graph-structured stacks distinguished by position . . 108 109 109 110 110 xv . . . .4 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Completer G . . . . 68 Completer B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2. . 102 LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation . . . . . . . 59 Two alternative graph-structured stacks . . . . . . .13 5. .16 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 i I-edges . . . . . . . . . .18 5. . . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . .23 5. . . . last case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Path invariant . . 58 A predict time graph . . . LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . 52 Push and Pop moves on the same spine . . . . . . Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A non context-free structural description for the language wwR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 5. . .22 5. . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 1.6 5. . . . . 68 Completer C . . . . . . . . . .11 5. . . .6 5. . . . .3 2. . . . . . . . 71 Completer F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Completer A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Language relations . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2. .

. . . . GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . . SLASH and coordination in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6. . . . . . . . . Head-Comps Schema tree representation . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies . SLASH in GIG format . . . . . . . . . .14 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 111 112 112 113 113 117 117 118 118 119 120 121 121 122 123 124 xvi . . . . . . . . . . .13 6. . . . . . . . .11 6. . . . . . .10 6. . . . . . . . . . .8 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject Schema . . . . . . . . . .16 6. . . . . .21 6.20 6. . . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject in GIG format . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . second case . . . . . . . . . Head-Comp in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF I . . A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language .18 6. . . . . . . .19 6. . . .6. . . . . . . . . . .7 6. LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs . . . . . . . . .9 6. . . . . .15 6. . . . . . . . .6 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The purpose of this thesis is to explore an alternative formalism with restricted context-sensitivity and computational tractability. 59]). well understood and most widely applicable part of formal language theory.g.1 Introduction Context-free grammars (CFGs) constitute perhaps the most developed. polynomial parsability. Such a model is relevant. where the control device is a context-free grammar (see [87] and [26] regarding control languages). closure properties). We try to obtain a model with eﬃcient computation properties. for the following areas: • Natural Language modeling and processing. However there are many problems that cannot be described by context-free languages. at least. In [25] seven situations which cannot be described with a context-free framework are given. Many formalisms have been proposed to extend the power of context-free grammars using control devices. The appeal of this approach is that many of the attractive properties of context-free languages are preserved (e.Chapter 1 Introduction 1. 81. 1 . In an automaton model those extensions either use constrained embedded or additional stacks (cf. semilinearity property. [7. • Computational Biology • Possibly also relevant to programming languages which might use context sensitive features (like Algol 60).

where a language of level k properly includes a language of level k − 1. additional levels of embeddedness. among others. 29]. scrambling. multiple context free grammars [71]. INTRODUCTION Such models can be generalized and additional control levels. and multi-push-down grammars [21]. 4 See for example. Weir’s [87]. These constructions are exempliﬁed as [26]:2 – reduplication. 23. that can be modeled with GILs.g. Georgian Case and Chinese numbers) might be considered 3 However to be beyond certain mildly context-sensitive formalisms. leading to languages of the form {ww |w ∈ Σ∗ } – multiple agreements. They form hierarchies of levels of languages. 47] on semi-linearity. corresponding to languages of the form {an bn cn | n ≥ 1}. 86] and [55. We will exemplify this issue with some properties of natural language and we will consider some biology phenomena.1. there is increasing consensus1 on the necessity of formalisms more powerful than CFGs to account certain typical natural languages constructions. . or additional stacks can be added. We will focus in natural language problems from a language theoretic point of view. As a consequence those generalizations provide more expressive power but at a computational cost. {an bn cn dn | n ≥ 1}.1 Natural Language Regarding natural languages (one of the seven cases mentioned above). The complexity of the recognition problem is dependent on the language level. 1.3 It has been claimed that a NL model must have the following properties:4 1 See 2 The for example [73. following type of languages are also relevant to model molecular biology phenomena [70] there are other phenomena (e. Examples of those related hierarchies are: Khabbaz’s [49]. etc. 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. – crossed agreements.2 CHAPTER 1. in particular related to the so called Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms. [46. 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. In general. Within Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms we focus on Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) which are weakly equivalent.

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

and m the number of terms in the productions. Multivalued Linear Indexed Grammars [63]. u ¯ . Direct Repeats (the copy language). Pseudoknots (crossing dependencies) represented as: Lk = {uv¯R v R }. In this case the complexity of the recognition problem is a bound polynomial: O(n6 ) space and O(n9 ) time [36]. conformation of macromolecules and the computational analysis of sequence data are problems which have been approached from such a perspective. recombination. mutation and rearrangements. 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). 69]).4 CHAPTER 1. There are other formalisms related to mildly context-sensitive languages that are not characterized by a hierarchy of grammar levels. 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. 68] proposes a grammar model to capture the language of DNA. or ordering) the recognition problem is in O(n3 ·2 k −1 ) [86. Contextual Languages do not properly include context-free languages. 12]. Some of those formalisms are: Minimalist grammars [78. 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. 54]. However. 10. gene structure and expression.1. Gene regulation. He shows that the language of nucleic acids is not regular. Contextual Grammars [52. For LMGs the complexity of the recognition problem is O(|G|m(+p)n1 +m+2p ) where p is the arity of the predicates.2 Biology and the Language of DNA Recently. nor deterministic nor linear. and the related Literal Movement Grammars (LMGs). 1. 38. Tree Description Grammars [47] are other such examples. that it is ambiguous and that it is not context-free. Those problems which are beyond context free are: Tandem Repeats (multiple copies). Searls [70. 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. 87]. Range Concatenative Grammars [34. 66] is another formalism with some mildly context sensitive characteristics.

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

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

concatenation and Kleene star. We also show that GILs are closed under intersection with regular languages and inverse homomorphism (proved by construction with LR-2PDAs). We also show that GILs are closed under substitution by e-free CFLs.2. O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ). OUTLINE OF THE THESIS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RESULTS 7 six operations: union. We evaluated the impact of the size of the grammar and the indexing mechanism separately. intersection with regular languages. for example. free morphisms and inverse morphisms. Most of the properties of GILs shown in these chapters are proved using straightforward extensions of CFL proofs. The space complexity is O(n4 ). We show by construction using GIGs that GILs are closed under union. They are also the basis for non-deterministic approaches. 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. e-free homomorphism. This is due to the fact that GILs inherit most of CFL properties. for higher level programming languages or deterministic approaches for shallow parsing in natural language. Tree Adjoining Grammars and Head Grammars are weakly . The result. The graph-structured stack enables the computations of a Dyck language over the set of indices and their complements. We also give an LR parsing algorithm for for deterministic GILs. e-free regular sets. but the indexing mechanism could have a higher impact. catenation. We also prove that GILs are semi-linear.1. The time complexity of the algorithm is O(n6 ). Combinatory Categorial Grammars. 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. Kleene star. LIGs. Deterministic LR parsing techniques are relevant. shows that the size of the grammar has the same impact as in the CFG case. such as a non-deterministic Generalized LR parsing. 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. Natural Language Modeling (Chapter 6) We present a comparison of LIGs and GIGs (some of these results were presented in [20]).

1: Language relations . We discuss the relationship of LIGs with GILs in depth in section 6. Our conjecture is that it is.2. The question still to be answered is whether the area with lines in the LILs and LCFR languages set is empty or not. Those natural language phenomena that require an extra power beyond CFLs can be dealt with GILs with much more ﬂexibility than with LILs/TALs. LILs/TALs. GILs include CFLs by deﬁnition. and GILs can be represented as in ﬁgure 1. The set inclusion relation between CFLs. LCFRLs LILs CFLs ww anbncn ww + an(bncn ) + GILs Figure 1. Other formalisms that might share structural similarities with GIGs could be Minimalist Grammars and Categorial Grammars. INTRODUCTION equivalent. We also show that GIGs can generate trees with dependent paths.8 CHAPTER 1.1. There is a long and fruitful tradition that has used those formalisms for Natural Language modeling and processing. Finally. so the descriptive power of CFGs regarding by natural language phenomena is inherited by GIGs. we disscuss how some properties of HPSGs can be modeled with GIGs (presented in [19].

85].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. 9]. We need to guarantee that the proposed automaton model does not have the power of a Turing Machine.1 Automata with two Stacks Diﬀerent models of 2-Stack Push Down Automata have been proposed. 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. also generalized models of multistacks (e.[7. 84]). 84. 81. and n-Stack PDA.[31. but behaves like a PDA. 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. (e.. Consequently it is possible to simulate the capacity that a TM 1 See [7..g.g. Restricted classes of PDA with two stacks (2-PDA) were proposed as equivalent to a second order EPDA1 . 59] [21. [41]).2 It is well known that an unrestricted 2-PDA is equivalent to a Turing Machine (cf.. or multi-store PDAs as equivalent to n-order EPDA. 9 . 21. 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. 83. 2 E.Chapter 2 Two Stack Push Down Automata 2.

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

to recognize crossed dependencies as in the example depicted in the next ﬁgure: Figure 2.2. They also require the use of a symbol for the bottom of the stack. for instance. 59]. so as to separate diﬀerent sub-stacks. The possible moves for a 2-SA automaton are the following [7]: • Read a symbol from the input tape . 81. It allows the NPDA. 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. Symbols written in the second stack can be accessed only after the preceding stack is empty.1.1: Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) 2 Stack automata (2-SA) were shown to be equivalent to EPDA [7. they use the additional stack in the same way as the embedded stacks are used in the EPDA.

The kind of automata we present implements a restriction on the writing conditions on the additional stack. b}∗ }. 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). q 0 . • 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 shrinking-TPDA.12 CHAPTER 2. The reading/writing restriction is related to the requirement that the preceding stacks be empty. δ.1.2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata Recently there has been interest on Church-Rosser Languages. and the alternative restriction with respect to writing. Γ. b}∗ } belongs to CSL \ GCSLs. Growing Context Sensitive Languages (deﬁned by a syntactic restriction on context sensitive grammars) and the corresponding model of two pushdown automata (see [24. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA • push a string onto. Σ. The recognition problem for growing context sensitive grammars is NP-complete ( [14]). • remove bottom of the stack symbols. ⊥. 16. or pop a symbol from. 58]. but {an bn cn |n ≥ 1} is a GCSL. In [16] Buntrock and Otto’s Growing Context Sensitive Languages (GCSLs) are characterized by means of the Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata (sTPDA). 15. F ). The TPDA initializes the input in one of the stacks. the main stack • push a string onto the auxiliary stack. is deﬁned as follows: Deﬁnition 1 a) A TPDA is a 7-tuple M = (Q. GCSLs contain the non-context-free and non-semi-linear {a2 |n ≥ 0} [16] The copy language is not a GCSL {ww|w ∈ {a. But this restriction is not related to conditions on the the main stack but to conditions on the input. 53. GCSLs are a proper subclass of CSLs: The Gladkij language {w#wR #w | w ∈ {a. n . 2.

b) then φ(puv) < φ(qab). a.. Either of these symbols may be .2. • Γ is the ﬁnite tape alphabet with Γ • q 0 ∈ Q is the initial state. Part a) in the deﬁnition of the transition function is equivalent to a PDA. LEFT RESTRICTED 2 STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATAS (LR-2PDAS) • Σ is the ﬁnite input alphabet. if it is not ).e. We use a standard notation similar to the one used in [77] or [41]. 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.e. The restriction is implemented using a weight function over the automaton conﬁguration. the next symbol read and the top symbols of the stacks determine the next move of a LR-2PDA.2. 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. b ∈ Γ if (p. Part c) is a relaxation of the previous one and enables . 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. v) ∈ (δ. and the requirement that every move must be weight reducing [57]. i. otherwise it is equivalent to a TM. only if they are equivalent to a PDA transition function. Part b) enables transitions that aﬀect the auxiliary stack if and only if an input symbol is consumed (i. 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. 2. • F ⊆ Q is the set of ﬁnal (or accepting) states.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. The current state. u. causing the machine to move without reading a symbol from the input or from the stacks. • ⊥ ∈ Γ \ Σ is the bottom marker of pushdown store.

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

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

(q 3 . ) (transfer symbols from auxiliary to main stack) 3. an LR-PDA can recognize the language L3 = {www | w ∈ Σ∗ }. ) = (q 1 . 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). In order to avoid the possibility of transferring symbols from one stack to the other indeﬁnitely. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA A LR-2PDA: The input can be transversed only once. 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. This exempliﬁes how many times (and the directions in which) the same substring can be transversed.4. The crucial fact is that transitions type c. if information from the ﬁrst ordered stack is transferred to the second auxiliary stack. from left to right. but unlike a TM. whatever remains at the right is forgotten). There are two work- spaces which also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. a LR-2PDA is not able to transverse a substring indeﬁnitely. . Transfer from one stack to the other is restricted. a. the second storage can be written to only when consuming input. a) (store the symbols of the ﬁrst copy) 2. . but it can store again in the second stack (the second copy). However. a. a) = (q 2 . The corresponding machine is detailed below in the exsection 2. . Consider the following transitions (where a is a symbol in Σ). given the constraints imposed on LR-2PDAs. While recognizing the second copy all the information stored about the ﬁrst copy is lost.16 CHAPTER 2. then the possibility of storing information from the input seen at this move is lost. au) (recognize the second copy using the symbols stored in the main stack. (q 1 . consequently what is being read cannot be stored in the main or the auxiliary stack if there is a transferral occurring. (q 2 . . . 1. a. 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∗ }. (above) . u) = (q 3 . a. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA .22 CHAPTER 2.

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

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

T.]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. so we can consider them global.. without it GIGs would be equivalent to a Turing Machine. We deﬁne the derives relation ⇒ on sentential forms. #... P ) where N.1 or context free ) xδ#βAγ ⇒ xδ#βX 1 .1 A → α a..]α [.... 1. [39]). T.. Derivations in a GIG are similar to those in a CFG except that it is possible to modify a string of indices. x ∈ I) then: δ#βAγ ⇒ δ#βX 1 . α.X k γ) (production type a.. having the following form.]A → [.X k γ Using a diﬀerent notation: δ#βAγ ⇒ δ#βX 1 . The notation at the right is intended to be more similar to the notation used in IGs and LIGs. Pop rules do not require a terminal at all. x in I. An additional constraint imposed on GIGs is strict leftmost derivation whenever indices are introduced or removed by the derivation. In the next subsection we present an even more restricted type of GIG that requires both push and pop rules in Greibach Normal Form. a.X k is a production of type a. w be in T ∗ and X i in (N ∪ T ). y ∈ {I ∪ #}. µ = µ or µ = [x]. The constraint on push rules is a crucial property of GIGs.T ) and 6) P is a ﬁnite set of productions.X k γ (production type a.N . 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. If A → X 1 . Let β and γ be in (N ∪ T )∗ .e..1 where x ∈ I.]A → [x. I. A ∈ N . (i. A → a β x c.2 A → α [y] or or or or A→α [.]a β [x. β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ and a ∈ T . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 25 of indices dependent on lexical information.g.]A → [.2. It also makes explicit that the operations are associated to the computation of a Dyck language (using such notation as used in e. δ be in I ∗ . This string of indices is not associated with variables. S.. . and allows the kind of recognition algorithm we propose in Chapter 5.2) [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.. 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.3. Deﬁnition 6 A GIG is a 6-tuple G = (N... in a linguistic sense. which are strings in I ∗ #(N ∪ T )∗ as follows.

. x ∈ I. If A → X 1 . then: µ δ#wAγ ⇒ xδ#waX k . We also introduce some examples of trGIGs modeling multiple agreements and crossed dependencies.b) (in other words push productions must be in Greibach Normal Form). α..]A → [.) or pop : µ = x...26 CHAPTER 3. with the consequence that LILs are semilinear.1 trGIGS We now deﬁne trGIGs as GIGs where the pop rules (type c. IGs.X n γ ) x 3.) or push: µ = x.X n is a production of type (c.X n γ ( or xδ#wAγ ⇒ δ#wX 1 . LIGs and GIGs.. 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).. then: ¯ xδ#wAγ ⇒ δ#wX 1 . are as follows.) rules in GIGs.) are constrained to start with a terminal in a similar way as push (type b. In LIGs indices are associated with only one non-terminal at the right-hand side of the rule.2. Deﬁnition 7 A trGIG is a GIG where the set of production of types (c) (pop) rules. and a ∈ T : c.. A ∈ N . The derives deﬁnition requires a leftmost derivation for those rules (push and pop rules) that aﬀect the stack of indices. x ∈ I.. Unlike LIGs and IGs.. x ∈ I. This produces the eﬀect that there is only one stack aﬀected at each derivation step. GIGs can have rules where the right-hand side of the rule is composed only of terminals and aﬀects the stack of indices. In IGs the stacks of indices are distributed over the non-terminals on the right-hand side of the rule.. Indeed push rules (type b) are constrained to start the right-hand side with a terminal as speciﬁed in GIG’s deﬁnition (6.. A → a β x ¯ or [x. ∗ 3. GIGs share this uniqueness of the stack with LIGs. If A → aX 1 .X n γ ) x ¯ ∗ The reﬂexive and transitive closure of ⇒ is denoted as usual by ⇒. but to an extreme: there is only one stack to be considered.X n is a production of type (b.X n γ µ ( or δ#wAγ ⇒ xδ#waX 1 . is the interpretation of the derives relation relative to the behavior of the stack of indices.. 2.. where x ∈ I. We deﬁne the language of a GIG G. β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ ... L(G) to be: {w|#S ⇒ #w and w is in T ∗ } It can be observed that the main diﬀerence between.] a β . the stack of indices in a GIG is independent of non-terminals in the GIG case...

#. d}.E i → ai E i ai ai−1 ¯ 2.. {a1 . S → a1 S E 2 3a.. c. Ok → ak ak −1 ¯ L(Gn ) = {a1 a2 .an | n ≥ 1.3. Ak → ak 6b. and P is composed by: 1.. R. a 4 .. b. {a 2 . Ak }. 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. G5 = ({S. k ≥ 4} is in trGIL 1 2 k Proof Construct the GIG grammar Gk = ({S. 4 ≤ k} We can generalize the same mechanism even further as follows: Example 8 (Multiple dependencies) L(Ggdp ) = { an (bn cn )+ | n ≥ 1}. E}. {a.... A. a j }... S → A D 2. {a .2. m ≥ 1}. Ggdp = ({S. A → a A c | a B c 3.. ..ak | n ≥ 1. P ) such that k ≥ 4 and j = k if k is even or j = k − 1 if k is odd. B → b B | b x 4. ak }. S→ a1 E 2 4a. 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 . where Gc r = ({S. C. L}. Oi → ai E i+1 If k is even add: If k is odd add: n n 3b. D1 . 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 . d. 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. Oi → ai Oi E i+1 ai−1 ¯ 6a. B. {x and P is: 1. {a. g }. . E. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Example 6 (multiple agreements) L(G5 ) = {an bn cn dn en | n ≥ 1}. A. #.Ak → ak Ak 5b. O. e}. b. c}. {i}. D. C}. E 2 . c. O3 . .. {a. Ak → ak Ak ak −1 ¯ n 4b. S. S. S. #.. b. A.

{i. S. b. j}. Above. Example 9 (Copy Language) L(Gww ) = {ww |w ∈ {a.28 CHAPTER 3. {i. R.2. j}. S → bS j 3. E}. B. 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. S. #. 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. {a. #. {a. This is not possible in trGIGs because pop rules cannot be left recursive. F. j. {a. b}∗ } Gww = ({S. P ) and P = . D. A. f }. d. b}∗ } Gwwn = ({S. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5. 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.2 GIGs examples We conjecture that the following languages can be deﬁned with a GIG and cannot be deﬁned using a trGIG. 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. b}. It is easy to see that by generalizing the same mechanism any ﬁnite number of crossing dependencies can be generated. b}. S → R 4. Example 11 (Crossing Dependencies) L(Gcr3 ) = {an bm cl dn em f l } Gcr3 = ({S. B. k}. we mentioned the diﬀerence between push and pop rules in GIGs. #. R}. P ) and P = 1. e. S → aS i 2. C}. {i. c. C. L. S. #S ⇒ #AR ⇒ #aAER ⇒ #aaER ⇒ i#aabR ⇒ ii#aabbL ⇒ ii#aabbOR ⇒ i#aabbcOER ⇒ #aabbccER ⇒ i#aabbccbRii#aabbccbbL ⇒ ii#aabbccbbC ⇒ i#aabbccbbcC ⇒ #aabbccbbcc 3. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS The derivation of the string aabbccbbcc shows ﬁve dependencies.

3. . It allows an incredible number of possible strings of any given length in the language. j. S. 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. {i. Joshi p. B → bB | bC j ¯ i 2. F → aF | aB i ¯ j 4.2. Example 12 (MIX language) Gmix = ({S}. obtaining sets of crossing dependencies. It is easy to design GIG grammars where the respective languages are in Lmix . The number of strings of length 3n is (3n)!/(n!)3 . and at the same time it requires that three dependencies be observed. 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. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 1} Example of a derivation for the string abbcca. In the mix language each character occurs in one third of the string and there are three characters. see e. b. S ⇒ k#aS ⇒ #aSbScS ⇒ #abScS ⇒ j#abbcS ⇒ #abbcScSaS ⇒ #abbccSaS ⇒ #abbccaS ⇒ #abbcca We present here the proof that L(Gmix ) = Lmix . therefore ILs and GILs could be incomparable under set inclusion. C → cC | c k 5. #. There are also factorial duplicates for the number of times a character occurs in the string.g. k}. E → Ee | De 7. [11] ).c. and 1680 strings of length 9). The diﬃculty is due to the number of strings in the language at the basic combination level (there are 90 strings of length 6. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 1. This language though conceptually simple. 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 . and the need to ensure that the three dependencies (between a’s. {a. turns out to be a very challenging problem. b’s and c’s) are observed. b. D → Dd | d This can be even further generalized. The number of permutations for a string of length n is n!. S → F L ¯ k 29 3. however it is not so easy to prove or assess whether the 2 A. It was conjectured in [29] that the MIX language is not an IL. L → Lf | Ef 6. c}. We show that GILs are semilinear.

This blocking eﬀect can be illustrated by the following hypothetical situation: suppose uwyz might be composed by u = u b1 . Proof . 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). S ⇒ δ#uS ⇒ kδ#uaS ⇒ δ#uaSbScS ⇒ δ #uawbScS But at this point the strings b and c might block a possible derivation. b. 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. and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation.30 CHAPTER 3. It can be seen that all the derivations allow only equal number of a s. We need to prove that ut1 wt2 y t3 z is in L(GMIX ) ( |uti wti y ti z| = n + 3). 1. Second direction: Lmix is in L(Gmix ) Basis 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. First direction: L(Gmix ) is in Lmix = {w|w ∈ {a. 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. where ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ |uwyz| = n. with the one proposed in 2. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 0}. n ≥ 0. y = a1 y c1 z. 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 ). b s and c s due to the constraint imposed by the indexing mechanism. w = w c2 and y = a2 y b2 trigger the following derivation (perhaps the only one). GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS language is indeed Lmix . 2. we reach the following point: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . n = 3: S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #abc k ¯ k ¯ k is clearly in the language.

e...2..(ti .: baScacbS where the two non terminal S expand the ti n−1 triples.tj . 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 .. 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. We prove now that such a blocking eﬀect in the indexing is not possible: there are always alternative derivations. 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. Case 2. Therefore. 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 . We need to account whether there is a possible conﬁguration such that a conﬂict of indices arises. there are three diﬀerent indices (ti = tj = tk ): ti utj vtk . clearly S ⇒ i#ti S ⇒ #ti Stj Stk S and the complements of ti . 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 . In other words. 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 . tk . there is no guarantee that the necessary sequence of indices are removed..3.. because the grammar is highly ambiguous. .ti )n ] And this problem is reduced to: ¯¯¯¯ tj ti S tj tj ti ti S i. removing the index j.. We show now that this situation is impossible and that therefore Lmix is in L(GMIX ). Case 1. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 3. tj are reduced to the case of two conﬂicting indices. and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation.

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. etc. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 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. w. This assumption is made based on the previous two claims.) 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 . The tests were performed on the strings of length 6 and 9. x. given we are considering just two possible conﬂicting indices.32 CHAPTER 3. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Assume the possible empty strings 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. 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. The well-known Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger theorem [22]. if indices are introduced. z and y do not introduce possible blocking indices (i. shows that any CFG is u . they are also removed in the derivation of the substring). 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 .e.

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

n > 1 then: Case (A) If: #S ⇒ #yB ⇒ #ya S 1 ⇒ zA1 ⇒ za¯ a It is clear that if z ∈ Dr . Suppose that if there is a GIL derivation δ#uA ⇒ δ#uyB (where u. Induction Hypothesis. The proof is an induction on the length of the computation sequence.34 iα 3. if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → ¯ 1 iiα [i] L(G1) is a CFL. y ∈ k ¯ ¯ T ∗ ) implies there is a L(G1) derivation u A ⇒ u zB (where u . 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 . 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. z ∈ (T T ∪ I ∪ I)∗ ) such that z ∈ Dr k and φ(z) = y for every k < n. Suppose w ∈ φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). We have to show that L = φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). φ and the corresponding CFL. (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 . Suppose w ∈ L. And if φ(z) = y then φ(za¯) = ya a a Case (B) If: #S ⇒ #uA ⇒ i#uaB ⇒ i#uayC ⇒ #uaya by Induction Hypothesis. so we have deﬁned Dr . so is za¯. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 4. if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → ¯ 1 ¯ i CHAPTER 3. First direction L ⊆ φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). 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.

This is on our view a consequence of the fact that GIGs are a natural extension of CFGs.3. ¯ i. S → 4. j} ¯ b. S →S b¯¯ bj 4. S → a¯iS a 6. 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 . and we construct GwwD from Gww as follows: GwwD = ({S. . S →S a¯¯ ai 3. j}.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. S → S ¯ a ia¯ 5. S → S b ¯ j 6. The proof is an extension of the equivalence proof between CFGs and PDAs. S → bS j 3. i. #. {a. S → S a ¯ i 5. ¯ i. S → b¯ bjS 7. S → S b ¯ j ¯ Let D4 be the semi-Dyck set deﬁned over Σ0 = {a. b. S → S b¯¯ bj 1. {a. S. S → 3. 2. i. ¯ j. j}.4. a. {i. S }. S }. ¯ j. P ) and P = ¯ b. ¯ S. then there exists a LR-2PDA M such that L= L(M). P ) and P = 1. ¯ = Σ∪Σ. b}. b. b}∪I = {i. #. 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 . Theorem 2 If L is a GIL. b}∗ } Given Gww = ({S. a. j} CF Lww = L(GwwD ). S → S a ¯ i 7. Σ = T = {a. S → aS i 2.

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

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

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

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

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

another family of languages that has some similarities with GILs. GILs might include LILs and perhaps LCFRLs. GILs are incomparable to the Growing Context Sensitive Languages (GCSLs). Most of other relations are more diﬃcult to determine. the relation to LILs is interesting because of their similarities both in the grammar and the automaton model. GILs and ILs might be incomparable. 41 . However GCSLs might include trGILs. corresponds to an amount of tape equal to the input in a LBA. Therefore a LBA can simulate a LR-2PDA.Chapter 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. 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. The relation to Growing Context Sensitive languages is interesting for a similar reason. 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. 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. The additional stack in GIGs/LR-2PDA. We do not address possible relationship with the counter languages [42] however. • Proper inclusion of GILs in CSLs. Moreover. and the constraints imposed on the use of the additional stack in the GIL automaton might be seen as a shrinking property.

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

T 1 ∪ T 2 . The proof that L(G4 ) = L(G1 )L(G2 ) is similar to the previous one. Proof Let L be a GIL. A string w is in L1 if and only if the derivation #S 4 ⇒ #S 1 ⇒ #wS 2 is a derivation in G4 . #. where each Ga is in GNF. P 5 .4. Let L be L(G) and for each a in Σ let La be L(Ga ). Construct G4 = (N 1 ∪ N 2 . Assume that the non-terminals of G an Ga are disjoint. S 4 ) such that P 4 is P 1 ∪ P 2 plus the production S 4 → S 1 S 2 . Closure:. -free homomorphisms. Construct a GIG grammar G1 such that: (a) the non terminals of G1 are all the non-terminals of G and of each Ga . and a string u is in L2 if and only if the derivation #wS 2 ⇒ #wu. and for each a in Σ let La be a CFL. therefore also no δ ∈ I 2 can be generated at this position. #.2. The substituting CFG must be in Greibach Normal Form (so as to respect the constraints on productions that push indices in the stack). given the only production that uses S 1 and S 2 is S 4 L(G4 ) = L1 · L2 .Let G5 = (N 1 ∪ {S 5 }. I 1 ∪ I 2 . (b) the terminals of G1 are the terminals of the substituting grammars Ga . L ⊆ Σ∗ . P 4 . (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 . (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. Proposition 2 GILs are closed under substitution by -free CFLs. [#] ∗ ∗ ∗ The proof is similar to the previous one. T 1 . I 1 . is a derivation in G4 for some w. -free regular sets. S 1 ) where P 5 is P 1 plus the productions: S5 → S1 S5 | . This proof adapts the substitution closure algorithm given in [41] to prove substitution closure by CFLs. CLOSURE PROPERTIES OF GILS 43 Concatenation:. 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.

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

L is a semi-linear language. [33. is semilinear provided that the languages corresponding to C are semilinear. . The proof of this lemma is in [30]. Lemma 4 If X and Y are semilinear subsets of Nn . Semilinearity has been assumed as a good formulation of the constant growth property of natural languages (e. where M c is obtained from an automata class C by augmenting it with ﬁnitely many reversal-bounded counters.. v i ∈ Nn for 1 ≤ i ≤ m} b) is semilinear if V is the ﬁnite union of linear sets. 35]). Deﬁnition 9 Parikh Mapping (see [39]) : Let Σ be {a1 . an }. recently it has been claimed that semilinearity might be too strong a requirement for models of natural language (e. Deﬁnition 8 A set V in Nn a) is linear if V = {v 0 + c1 v 1 + . that CFLs are letter-equivalent to a regular set. This property has been extensively used as a tool to characterize formal languages (e. [55. 37]).g. Two languages L1 . |an |(w)) where |ai |(w) denotes the number of occurrences of ai in w. The Parikh mapping is a function that counts the number of occurrences in every word of each letter from an ordered alphabet. deﬁne a mapping from Σ∗ into N n as follows: ψ(w) = (|a1 |(w)..3. The commutative or Parikh image of a language L ∈ Σ∗ .. We will use the following lemma in the proof of semilinearity for GIGs. We will not discuss here whether semilinearity is the correct approach to formalize constant growth. Intuitively.g. If ψ(L) is semi-linear.. However.e.. SEMILINEARITY OF GILS AND THE CONSTANT GROWTH PROPERTY 45 i. Theorem 5 If L is a GIL then L is a semi-linear language. .4. The Parikh image of a language is the set of all vectors obtained from this mapping to every string in the language. concept. ψ(L) = {ψ(w)|w ∈ L}. [46. as Theorem 5.6. 60]. .. 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.1. 86]).. We follow the proof presented in [37] to prove that the class of languages L(M c ).g. L2 in Σ∗ are letter-equivalent if ψ(L1 ) = ψ(L2 ). + cm v m |ci ∈ N. Roughly speaking. then their intersection X ∩Y is also semilinear. the property of semi-linearity of GILs follows from the properties of the control mechanism that GILs use..

.. Let S 2 be the semilinear set {(a1 . in other words. By the Parikh theorem [60] the Parikh map of the CFL L(G1). S. if p = A → α then p1 = A → α 2.4 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: . i ∈ I. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES The proof exploits the properties of Theorem 1: every GIL L = φ(Dr ∩ L1) such that L1 is a CFL. in . removing the pairs of ik and ¯k coordinates. am .. Σ. P 1) Deﬁne a CFG grammar G1 = (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. Dr and L1 are semilinear by the Parikh theorem (L1 and Dr are CFLs). ¯n .. We modify the construction of L1 in the proof of Theorem 1. as follows: 1. removing the illegal derivations. ψ(L(G1)) is an eﬀectively computable semi-linear set S 1 . ik . ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new production p1 ∈ P 1. 4. i Corollary 6 The emptiness problem is decidable for GILs. Σ1 . ip . #. P ) such that ¯ Σ1 is (Σ ∪ I ∪ I) and P 1 is given according to the following conditions. From S3 we obtain S 0 the semilinear set corresponding to ψ(L(G)). For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T. S. Proof Given a GIG G = (N.. and α. if p = A → α then p1 = A → iα i 3. This follows from Theorem 1. . I.46 CHAPTER 4. 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). ¯p )|aj . 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. The intersection of S 1 and S 2 is a computable semilinear set S 3 according to [30]. if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iα ¯ i 4.. note that S 2 is a subset of S 1 .

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

1 See [51] for a similar approach to Tomita’s. each node of the graph-structured stack will represent a unique index and a unique length of the stack. While the number of possible nodes increases. i#.Chapter 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. j#. ij#. iii#.) #. This is a departure from Tomita’s graph-structured stack. iji#. j with maximum length of stack 3. (i. 51 . It is a device for eﬃciently handling of nondeterminism in stack operations. in ﬁgure 5. As an initial approach. jij#. etc. ijj#. The numbers indicate the length. the number of possible conﬁgurations would grow exponentially with the length of the input. ji#. and [50] for an approach to statistical parsing using graph algorithms. For instance. the number of edges connecting a node to others is limited.1. The one at the right is equivalent to the maximal combination of stack conﬁgurations for indices i. jjj#.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. jii#. jj#. ii#. the active nodes are represented by circles and the inactive are represented by squares. The graph-structured stack at the left represents the following possible stack conﬁgurations: iii#. Each node at length n can have an edge only to a node at length n − 1.1 If all the possible stack conﬁgurations in a GIG derivation were to be represented.e. The set of nodes that represents the top of the stack will be called active nodes (following Tomita’s terminology).

Let G = (N. pj ].. 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) . T.1 $. currentnode connects only to nodes of current length-1.3 CHAPTER 5.1 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm Earley Algorithm.an with n ≥ 0 any integer i such that 0 ≤ i ≤ n is a position in w.. P ) be a CFG. S.3 i.2.oldnode).1 j. An item [A → α • β.2 i. pj ] is inserted in the set of states S i if α corresponds to the recognition of the substring aj . Push(newnode.. given a string w = a1 a2 . n ≥ 0. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS i.0 j..2 j. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the size of the indexing vocabulary.ai . which are composed of a ”dotted” rule and a starting position: [A → α • β.2 5. Earley items are inserted in sets of states. Retrieves all the nodes that are connected by an edge from the currentnode. Earley’s main data structures are states or “items”. Earley’s parsing algorithm [27] computes a leftmost derivation using a combination of top-down prediction and bottom-up recognition.1 $. Because at this point we use nodes of unambiguous length. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. 5. These items are used to represent intermediate steps in the recognition process.0 j.1 j. Therefore.2 j. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [S → • S$. There are as many sets as positions in the input string.52 i.3 Figure 5.1: Two graph-structured stacks The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string. Pop(curretnode).2 i. Algorithm 1 (Earley Recognition for GFGs) .3 i.

j] ∈ S i : for [A → α • Bβ. An example of such case would be the following i grammar: Gd = ({S}.b}.2. 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).{a. i] to S i b) Completer: (bottom-up recognition) If [B → γ • . 0. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string.2.{#}. j] to S i + 1 3 4 If S i+1 is empty.2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for GILs. If i = n and Sn+1 = {[S → S$ • . k] ∈ S j : add [A → αB • β. and O. such that O ≤ n where n is the length of the input. P ) be a GIG. 0). 0). Reject. We modify Earley items adding two parameters: ∆. O. used to record the ordering of the rules aﬀecting the stack. 0]} then accept 53 5. 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. Let G = (N. if pop rules “erase” symbols from the stack. Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#. T. pj ] Algorithm 2 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) .{i}. n ≥ 0.2 Therefore Earley items for GILs might be as follows: [∆. I. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#. A → α • Aβ. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [A → αa • β.5. #. S → • S$. S. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. a pointer to an active node in the graph-structured stack.{S}. If [A → α • aβ. j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P : add [A → • γ. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM If [B → α • Aβ.{P}) with P: S → aS | bS S→S| ¯ i . k] to S1i c) Scanner: equivalent to shift in a shift-reduce parser.

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

3.5.[#.[a.0.0.3. d}.0. [Stacksymbol.Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.c].[i.[b.1) Adding to stack: <22732> item((i.B.[].il].0.(#.1) 6. S).d].2) Adding to stack: <22863> item((i. P.3.1.2.1)) 7 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.[B.2.ir].[B].il].[#.4) . G2 = ({S.[#.ir].2).[].ir].il].2.0.0.0.1) 8 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.3. initialposition.2.[]. {a.3) 15.[].(i.[i.1.3.0.2)]) 12 Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.2) 14.2.[#. c.[a.3) 16 Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.0) 3 Adding to chart: <23470> item(S.d].[b]. Adding to chart: <26897> item(B.B.Adding to chart: <27540> item(S.[#.2.[].[a].[b]. B}.Adding to chart: <23724> item(S.ir].2.1) 5.[i.Adding to chart: <23599> item(S.0) 2 Adding to chart: <27413> item(S.2) 13.ir]. Adding to chart: <23851> item(B.1.2.4.4.[].[i.1.1.ir].0)) 4 Adding to chart: <10771> item(S.1. Adding to chart: <27798> item(B.1).[b.ir]. StackOperation].(i.2) 11.d].2.[i.S.3.c].[i.3. Postdotlist.[].1.e].[b. where P is: S → aSd.[S.0.2.1.ir].Adding to chart: <27671> item(S.2.2) 10.1.0.2.d].e]. #.2.il].[S. Example 18 (Trace of aabbccdd) L(G2 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}.1) 9 Adding to chart: <10640> item(S. i S→B B → bBc ¯ i B → bc ¯ i 1 Adding to chart: <10898> item(<start>.e].[B.[a.c].[b].[B].1.3).d].c].[].[B].1.3) 17.3) 18.0.[a].[S].3.[i.1.[i. StackCounter.ir].c].c]. {i}.2.[].e]. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 55 shows the recognition of the string aabbccdd with the grammar G2 transformed into a trGIG. ﬁnalposition) The stack operation is represented as follows: “il” is a push rule of the stack index “i” and “ir” is a pop rule.0.[#. OrderCounter.0) Adding to stack: <22605> item((i.1. b.S.[].B.[i.2.[c]. Each item is represented as follows: item(LeftSymbol.[i.il].[i.[#.4.c].1.0. Predotlist.S.[b.[].[b.3.[b.[].c]. Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.[].1.

[]. the following complete operation would be performed : Given [(#. b}∗ }. the corresponding productions of the grammar Gww repeated below and the string aaba 1. Adding to chart: <27654> item(B.3.[B.ir].5) 21.3.[c].[#.e].0.[B].[#. This bookkeeping is performed here by the order parameter.[#.0.[#.0) S ⇒ (i.[#.0.b]. 3). S → bS j 3.[b]. the completer operation may jump up two steps and complete the “R” introduced after step 3.b]. 2. In the following example the square brackets represent substrings to be recognized. Adding to chart: <10754> item(S.[].[]. S → • R.0) S ⇒ (x.[].[d].0. 3.[]. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5.0.a]. R → a • .[c.[#.1.56 19 CHAPTER 5. The pairs in parenthesis represent the nodes of the graph-structured stack: (#.[c].il]. S → R • .0.B.a].1.1)aabR[a][b]⇒(#. 2]. Adding to chart: <23215> item(S. S → aS i 2.S.6) 25.[#.2) aaR⇒ (i.[d.6) 24. In other words.0.a].[#.5) 22. 0).?) aaba i i ¯ i ¯ j 1 2 3 4 However.2) aaS ⇒ (j .[c. S → R 4.0.4.2. 3] ∈ S 4 and [(j.[].[S.[S].2.1) aS ⇒ (i. 0).[d].7) 27.2.4.0.2) aaS ⇒(i.8) 28.3) aabS ⇒(j . Adding to chart: <27783> item(B. 3. instead of the one introduced at step 5. 3] to S 4 Then the following are sequentially added to S 4 : a) [(#.S.ir].[d.[#. 0).ir].2.0. the following sequences can be generated using Earley’s Algorithm if no ordering constraint is enforced at the Completer Operation. S → bS • .il].3.1).ir].[#.b].1) aS ⇒ (i. 3] ∈ S 3 : ¯ j add [(#.0.6) 23.3.2. Adding to chart: <10883> item(S. Adding to chart: <23085> item(B.4) 20.0.il].1. Adding to chart: <10982> item(<start>.0.7) 26.0.e]. R → Rb | b ¯ j The following derivation is not possible (in particular step 4). Adding to chart: <23342> item(S.il].2. j .a].8) yes The following example shows why some bookkeeping of the order of the derivation is required in Earley items. 6.0)aaba[a][b] ¯ i 6 After recognized this substring. Consider the language Lww = {ww |w ∈ {a.1.3) aabR⇒(i.[S. aaRa ⇒ (?. Adding to chart: <10625> item(S. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Adding to chart: <22956> item(B. (#.2)aabR[b]⇒ i i j ¯ j ¯ i 1 2 3 4 5 (i.

S → aSd i 2. push push pop pop Figure 5. {a.3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs The Algorithm presented in the preceding section does not specify all the necessary constraints. 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. In other words. 4. P ) where P is: 1. 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. This is depicted in the following ﬁgure 5. At this point. 0). {i. R → • ∗ • b c. Example 19 Gamb4 = ({S. R}. j}. i 57 c) [(#. #.2. 2). . S → aSc j 3.2: Push and Pop moves on the same spine The following grammar produces alternative derivations which illustrate this issue. the complete operation of the previous algorithm does not specify the correct constraints. 2]. 0. 1. The exact prediction path that led to the current conﬁguration has to be transversed back in the complete steps. It cannot handle cases of what we call predict-complete ambiguity. S → aS • . completed-stack ambiguity and stack-position ambiguity.5. R → bc ¯ i 6. S → aS • . at some predict steps. 0] i 5. b.2. The ambiguity arises in the following conﬁguration S ⇒ aabR which would lead to the following items: [(#. 4. S. c. The predict-complete ambiguity In this case. S → R 7. 2] and b d. R → bd ¯ j 4. R → [(#. and at completer cases. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM b) [(#. d}.2. there is no way to control the correct derivation given no information on the pop moves has been stored. 2). 1]. 0). R → bRc ¯ i 5.

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

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

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

∆In . p) to the node (δ. their ¯ ¯ complements (I) and the empty stack symbol (#). p < 0. The empty stack is then represented by the node (#. -2 j. j] ∈ S i ¯ Nodes are represented by pairs of elements in I ∪ I ∪ {#}. 2 j. -1 j. ∆2 ) add ∆2 to valueset ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 . 0). . p > 0. -3 Figure 5. p) such that δ ∈ I. We need also to represent those constituents that did not generate a node of their own ( a push or pop derivation). We ¯ ¯ say a node ∆− is in I if it designates a pair (delta. [∆Ac . A node ∆cl (or cl(∆)) is a pointer (cl(δ). We say a node ∆+ is in I if it designates a pair (δ. Two parameters represent the portion of the stack: the current active node ∆Ac and the initial node ∆In .0 j. negative integers and zero respectively. ∆ − 1 ∈ I) and : ∆2 ∈ I ∪ {#} 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edgeC((∆ − 1. We use a substitution mapping cl from DI into DI ∪ {c}∗ . 2 j. deﬁned as follows: cl(δ) = cδ for any δ ∈ DI ∆cl represents a node (cl(δ). p) such that δ ∈ DI and p is an integer.e. but inherit the last generated node.2.1 j. ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset c c S 63 $. p) (∆) in the stack. A → α • aβ. ∆ − 3 ∈ I. -1 j.5. p) such that δ ∈ I.1 j. The vocabulary corresponding to the set of indices (I).3 j. will be denoted by DI (i. -2 j. and positive. -3 S S paths $. We refer to these as transmitted nodes. DI = I ∪ I ∪ {#}). Path2(∆ − 1 ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 4 .3 j.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.0 j.

StorePath(∆ − 1 . ∆R ) to Pathset ¯ For edgeC (∆−1 . The interpretation of these edge is that there is a path connecting the two ∆In nodes. by the following Push function. ∆R . ∆R2 ) add Path(∆ − 1 ∆ − 3 . Notice that an I-edge can be identical to a push or pop edge. ∆ + 2 . ∆ + 2 .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. therefore we will call them I-edges. ∆R 2) add Path(∆ − 1 . ∆R2 ) to Pathset ¯ else if ∆ − 1 > ∆R ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 . ∆ − 3 ) and For Path(∆ − 3 . This kind of edge relates ∆In nodes. I-edges are depicted in ﬁgure 5. ∆R2 ) to Pathset ¯ For edge(∆−1 . B I−edge α push or pop edge A Figure 5. I the set of indices. ∆R ) to Pathset . ∆ − 3 ) For Path (∆ − 3 . ∆ + 2 . ∆R ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 .initialnode). These edges will be introduced in the predict operation. ∆ + 2 . and ∆ − 1 . we will make use of an additional type of edge. ∆ − 3 . Algorithm 5 . ∆ + 2 .oldactivnode. ∆R2 ) add Path(∆ − 1 .64 CHAPTER 5.12. ∆R2 ∈ I ∪ I. 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). ∆ + 2 ) such that ∆ + 2 ≥ ∆R add Path(∆ − 1 . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS As we mentioned when we introduced the Push operation Push(newnode. ∆ − 3 ∈ I. ∆ + 2 . ∆ + 2 ∈ I. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ¯ If ∆ − 1 = ∆R : ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 .

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.5. scanner. T. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. 0). the function path is used. to retrieve the active nodes in I. 0). 0). δ ∈ DI and the absolute value of p (abs(p)) refers to the position in w = a1 .2. [δ] . S.an in which the index δ + in I was introduced. p) such that −n ≤ p ≤ n. 0). In the second case. Reject. S → S$ • . Prediction and Scanner Operations Prediction Operations will be divided in diﬀerent subcases. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 6 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) .. In the pop case there are two subcases (1. (#. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string. If i = n and Sn+1 = {[(#. 0). Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#. p0 ) designates an item initial node. 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: (#.2. pop or e-move). 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. P ) be a GIG. This is also required for productions ¯ that check the top of the stack: (A → γ) when the triggering item Active node is in I.. we represent nodes in the graph-structured stack with pairs (δ ± . Let G = (N. These subcases are constrained by the type of production applied (push. S → • S$. 0). I. Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#. The operations predictor.a): ¯ the active node in the triggering item is in I or (1. n ≥ 0. Ac(δ 1 . p1 ) designates an item active node (∆Ac ) and I(δ 0 . (#.b) where the active node is in I.2. #.

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

p3 ). p0 ). p2 ) such that δ ∈ I ∪ {#} and 0 ≤ p2 ≤ n). therefore. k] to S i Subcase 3. However. A completion edge is introduced recording the fact that this push node ∆In has been completed. ie. ∆I0 = (cl(δ). ( . This is the equivalent of a production S → aS¯ for a Dyck language over the alphabet {a. . If a subtree is in the Dyck language over a ¯ DI.5. .3 e-move) and therefore its initial node is a transmitted node. ∆I0 ) (where the omitted element is the active node ∆Ac of the combination target). p0 )) and for [Ac1(δ 0 . We use the symbol ‘ ’ hereafter to indicate that the information stored in the corresponding ﬁeld is not required in the computation.2. The constraint that there is an I-edge between ∆In and ∆I0 is checked. p). the initial node ∆In is inherited by the result item. This is the reverse of predictor 1. p3 ).e ∆Ac = (δ 2 . As a result of the combination. 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. I(δ 3 . . a reduction can be performed.e. A → α • Bβ. j] ∈ S i : for edge((δ 3 . we need to check also whether the stack associated ¯ with each subtree is a proper substring of the Dyck language over I ∪ I. p2 ). the transmitted nodes are consumed. a stack that is in the ¯ Dyck3 language of the indices and its complements (I ∪ I)). A → αB • β. The active node ∆Ac is also in I or it is the empty stack (i. Combination with an e-move item: δ 0 ∈ cl(I ∪ I) If [Ac(δ 2 . p2 ). the initial node ∆In is in I. p0 ) I(δ 0 . At this step. k] ∈ S j such that: ¯ δ 0 ∈ cl(I ∪ I) add [Ac(δ 2 . (derived by Predictor 1. The result item preserves the active node from the triggering item and the initial node from the combination target item.b combines a completed triggering item generated by a push production (using the prediction operation 1. Therefore if the information is stored in a three dimension table. (δ 0 . 3 Use the standard terminology concerning Dyck languages as found for instance in [39].a Completer A. ¯ 3.1). The ﬁrst completer subcase involves a combination item in S j that had been generated by an e-production. p3 ). a}. ). 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 . The idea is to be able to compute whether a tree has a valid stack (i. B → γ • . I(δ 3 . it means that only two dimensions are being used.3. No further constraints are checked. These edges are of the form (∆In . and the active node has to contain its inverse.

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

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

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

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

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

1 Complexity Analysis Overview The algorithm presented above has one sequential iteration (a for loop). which may have O(i) active nodes. might require O(i2 ). For each active node there might be at most i edges. −) 5. j] where: 0 ≤ j. ≤ i Thus there might be at most O(i3 ) items in each set S i . It has a maximum of n iterations where n is the length of the input. p2 . p1 ). . therefore the pop procedure might take time O(i2 ) for each set S i .19: Completer G Summary of Completer Cases CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM +/+ + + transmitted ACTIVE NODE +/+ ¯ .∆Ac + + +/-.5. Predictor pop.3.. p1 . ∆I0 ) ¯ check for ∆In reduce: ∆A ← ∆In − 1 reduce with path2 pushC(∆In . Scanner. transmitted Speciﬁc Actions ∆I 0 ← ∆In pushC(∆In .3 5.3.(∆A = ∆I ) +/. p2 ). COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS I_0 73 − I_0 i−edge − I_3 Ac_2 − Ac_2 − Figure 5. −) pushC(∆In . Each item in S i has the form: [Ac(δ 1 .(∆A > ∆In ) +/ +/TARGET ITEM transmitted +/+/+/+/. Predictor e-move and Predictor Push operations on an item each require constant time. I(δ 2 . A → α • Bβ.

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

3. This will allow to compare what is the impact of the indexing mechanism as an independent multiplicative factor. All average case results reported are empirical. There are no mathematical average case results. S. 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. m. 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. Unambiguous indexing should be understood as those grammars that produce for each string in the language a unique indexing derivation. The size of the grammar designated by |G| corresponds to the number of rules and the number of non-terminals. TAGs.3. 5. Usually. d}. so the following results hold: O(n6 ) is the worst case. The expensive one is the ﬁrst case. B. push. }. {i. In practice.5. 8 Context Free grammars where the set of items in each state set is bounded by a constant. 4. 7 and 8 would be bounded by the square of the number of b’s scanned so far. b. However.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. we keep separate the size of the context-free backbone and the indexing mechanism. 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. C}. the sources of increase in the time complexity are a) ambiguity between mode of operation in the stack ( . {a. . the real limiting factor in practice is the size of the grammar. m + k = n} Therefore. c. 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. 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]). The properties of Earley’s algorithm for CFGs remain unchanged. 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. O(n3 ) holds for grammars with constant or unambiguous indexing. and other grammar formalisms run much better than the worst case. #. k ≥ 0. the similar grammar Gamb3 = ({S. In the analysis we present here.

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

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

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

ai Aγ 2.. q. t[. q. i..aj ∗ ∗ S γ A η α β a1 .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. therefore it can be done in a n × n × n table. α ⇒ ai+1 . Given there are four parameter bound by n in each item. −. l b[η] → ∆ • . i. p. its space complexity is O(n4 ).. aj Figure 5. i t[η r ] → Θ • .4.. S ⇒ a1 .. −. l A note on Space Complexity The space complexity is determined by the storage of Earley items. i. k.. j. i] is inserted in the set S j if and only if the following holds: 1... and the number of possible nodes is bound by n.η] → t[. p.ηη r ] 5. j. ai a i+1 .. Storage of the graph-structured stack takes O(n3 ).20: Earley CFG invariant . Storing the combination of i-edges and edges involves three nodes.5. k t[η] → t[η r ] • . PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM Type 4 Completor: 79 t[η] → • t[η r ]..

X n is a production of type (b. taking into account the operations on the stack.80 CHAPTER 5. #δx ⇒ wX 1 .X k γ. # ⇒ w.4. x ∈ I) then: βAγ. S.X n is a production of type (c.) or push: µ = x. #δ ⇒ βX 1 ... #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .X k is a production of type (a. T. p1 ).. Assuming such an alternative deﬁnition of a GIG language. 1. δ is in C }. This is speciﬁed in terms of the Dyck language over ¯ I ∪I 5. x ∈ I. #δ or βAγ.) (i.. deﬁne the language of a GIG G to be the control language L(G.X n γ. x ∈ I.X k γ. . 9 See ∗ [25] for control languages pp.X n γ. #δx 3. Deﬁne C ¯ to be the Dyck language over the alphabet I ∪ I (the set of stack indices and their complements). p0 ).. A → α • β. #δx ⇒ βX 1 .. #δxδ y ⇒ wX 1 . If A → X 1 . #δx¯ x ¯ 4. and δ y ∈ C then: ¯ µ wAγ.. #δ ⇒ waX k . We can obtain an explicit control language9 modifying the deﬁnition of derivation for any GIG G = (N. If A → aX 1 . #δxδ y¯ x Then. L(G) to be: {w|#S ⇒ #w and w is in T ∗ }. ∗ An item [Ac(y..) or pop : µ = x.. y ∈ I. C): {w| S... I(z. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS The corresponding invariants of Earley’s algorithm for GIGs can be stated in a similar way.e... x ∈ I.. If A → X 1 . If A → X 1 .. then: µ wAγ.) or pop : µ = x. It is apparent that both deﬁnitions of a GIG language are equivalent. we address the correctness of the algorithm as follows: Proposition 6 (Invariants) ..ai Aγ. # ⇒ a1 .. #δ and w is in T ∗ . µ = µ [x] or µ = [x]. I. #. i] is a valid item in the Set S j if and only if the following holds: ¯ 1...X n γ. #δx 2. P ) as follows.1 Control Languages ∗ We deﬁned the language of a GIG G.... S. then: ¯ µ wAγ. x in I.. δ be in I ∗ .... Let β and γ be in (N ∪ T )∗ . w be in T ∗ and X i in (N ∪ T ).X n is a production of type (c. 173-185 and [87] for a control language representation for LIGs.

#νz µy π Such that: a.21: GIG invariant We will use Parsing Schemata to prove this proposition.2 Parsing Schemata We use Parsing Schemata. d. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 2. y = y .21 depicts the properties of the invariant. µπ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . δ ∈ DI iﬀ z µy π = epsilon. which naturally embed the invariant properties of the Earley algorithm for CFGs. z.5. 76]. a framework that allows high-level speciﬁcation and analysis of parsing algorithms [75. It will also help to understand the implementation of the algorithm we detail in the appendix. speciﬁes the constraints related to the position correlation with the strings in the generated language. This framework enables the analysis of relations between diﬀerent parsing . α. speciﬁes that the item has a transmitted node from the graph if the empty string was generated in the control language... Condition a. Condition d. # γ . Condition c. speciﬁes the properties of information of the graph-structured stack encoded in the item. ∈ cl(δ ). 5. speciﬁes the properties for the diﬀerent types of productions that generated the current item. Condition b. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . ¯ b. ν. p0 ≤ i + 1 and p1 ≤ j. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ 81 3. y ∈ I ∪ I iﬀ z = z . ∗ S ν a 1 . else δ = ¯ ¯ ¯ c. π ∈ C and νz µy πρ ∈ C for some ρ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . y π A z ai a ..aj . z.. The remaining conditions specify the properties of the string νz µy π relative to the control language C.4.4. δ = z iﬀ δ ∈ I ∪ I..α η β µ . Figure 5. i+1 aj ν z µ yπ Figure 5..

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

η ik . Predictor steps can be decomposed as: η ij η ij η jj ηp η ij ηp Completer Steps can be decomposed as: η ik . However there is an additional type of deduction step performed in this parsing schema.2. and they introduce prediction items η p in IC EarleyGIG . DPrPush . and DCompG have the following shape.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. η kj η ik . η kj Those deduction steps that compute the the Control language are DPath a . DPath2 a . DCompF . Items in IC EGIG will participate in some restricted deduction steps. and they introduce completion items η p in IC EarleyGIG . DPath2 b . η kj η ij ∧ η p This kind of deduction step can be understood as shortform for two deduction steps. Those items in IC EGIG . DPath b . a diﬀerent set of items.4. A parsing system (P) is complete if F(P) ∩ V(P) ⊇ C(P) (all correct ﬁnal items are valid). The parsing schema for GIGs corresponds to the algorithm 6 presented in section 5.5. Therefore IC EGIG . will represent edges and paths in the graph. will be used to perform the corresponding deduction steps.4. η ij η jj ∧ η p Completers DCompB . Prediction Push and Pop deduction Steps. and this corresponds to the control language. 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). A Parsing system is correct if F(P) ∩ V(P) = C(P) 5. DPrPop1 . and DPrPop2 have the following shape. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

(B → ξ) ∈ P such that δ Since η ij is correct. ij predict η jj ∗ . p1 ). #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . #νzµyπ y ⇒ ¯ ∗ . (y. (B → aξ) ∈ P .. This together with a. x . p1 ).4. #νzµyπx ⇒ y ¯ ∗ . (¯.5. p1 ). η push η path [path. #νzµy π Therefore: (this is common to all the subcases) d. S. (y. x = y . u = y . p3 = p0 . z ) ¯ .aj . #νzµyπ from η ∗ ij ∗ (a. S. . and c. b. p0 ). (B → ξ) ∈ P . j] is in S j if and only if: η ij : [Ac(y. p3 ). (z.. ∗ ¯ a. i] is in S j . u = x. #νzµyπ ⇒ x . p3 = j + 1. #νz µy π by b.. u = y. #νzµyπx iii.. A → α • Bβ. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM ∗ 89 Now αaj . #ηδ ⇒ (ai+1 . y . p2 = j + 1 η ij predict η jj ∧ η push η push = [push.(A → αBβ) ∈ P δ c. p0 )) y e. −p1 ). b. j + 1). p2 ). (z.. δ = . (x. I(z. Predictors An item η jj : [Ac(u. α. and we conclude the proof for Case1.aj . B → • ξ. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . . δ = x ∈ I. p2 = −p1 ¯ ¯ ¯ η ij predict η jj ∧ η pop η pop = [pop. allows us to conclude that η j is a correct item in S j . δ = y .) and the following deduction steps apply according to the value of δ i. #νzµyπ from (B → ξ) ∈ P ii.ai Aγ. η e. and c. p1 = p2 . the following derivations follow: η pop .. p0 )) e. • Case 2. # ⇒ a1 . # ⇒ a1 · · · ai ai+1 · · · aj Bβγ. #νzµyπ y ¯ It should be noted also due to η pop is obtained in this derivation. I(x. x = cl(z). p3 = −p1 .

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

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

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

It states that all the derivations in the grammar will have the corresponding item in the set of states.5. α. CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM I1(x. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . A → α • β. −) #νzµuπ +:u Table 5. Completeness) . PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM cl(x)µ y π = Therefore the result is νzµuπ 93 The following table 5. p3 ) Ac(y. p1 ). then an item ξ = [Ac(y. I(z.(x < y) +/ TARGET ITEM Ac1(u. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ ¯ 3. #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 2.4. p0 ) cl(z µu π) = +/+/+/+/+ +/-. #ν 2. p1 ) I(z. p0 ). p2 ) +/+/+ –+ + – + -x=u ¯ cl(xµyπ ) = –: y=x ¯ +/. S. .1: Conditions on the completer Deductions Lemma 8 (Second direction. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ. For each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 · · · η k 1 ≤ i ≤ k.2 and Proposition 6. This lemma is equivalent to the following claim in terms of the algorithm presented in section 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 . Result x µy π #νz µu π(x µ (y π #νz µu π(x µ y )π . i] is inserted in the Set S j . If 1.1 summarizes the conditions speciﬁed by the Completer Operations.

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

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

Those new potential items are triggered by items added to the chart.96 CHAPTER 5. 5. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Therefore from Lemma 7 ( V(P) ⊆ W). However. Given that the parsing schema abstracts from implementation details of an algorithm. 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). Items should be added to the chart as they are proved. its consequences are computed and themselves added to the agenda for later consideration.5 Implementation In order to perform some tests and as a proof of concept. agenda-based inference engine described in [72]. Because the inference rules are stated explicitly. chart-based deduction procedure is as follows (from [72]): 1. the relation between the abstract inference rules described in the previous section as parsing schema and the implementation we used is extremely transparent. each new item may itself generate new consequences. 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. we have proved the correctness of the Parsing Schema V(P) = W. and remove it. 2. 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. The Prolog database is used as a chart which plays the same role as the state sets in Earley’s algorithm. called the trigger item. the inference engine provides the control and data types. and Lemma 8 W ⊆ V(P). the parsing algorithm described in section 5. if necessary. 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. However. as a meta-interpreter. The general form of an agenda-driven. . Initialize the chart to the empty set of items and the agenda to the axioms of the deduction system. (b) Add the trigger item to the chart. the prototype is not particularly eﬃcient. 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.

{an bn cn de n |n ≥ 1}. 0. 0). and add these generated items to the agenda. (#. In this implementation the control language was not represented by separate items but as side conditions on the inference rules. The number of items generated for the Mix and the copy languages were as follows: . b}∗ } • {w(cw)+ |w ∈ {a. S → • S$. 0). 0). (#. 3.5. which where performed by procedures which implemented the path function over the graph representation. w ∈ {a.5. b. • Grammar Gamb5b which generates aacdbbcd and aadcbbdc but does not generate aacdbbdd nor aacdbbdc (a variation of Gamb5 presented above). The goal corresponds to the ﬁnal item in the Parsing Schema: F EGIG = {[(#. b}+ } {an (bn cn )+ |n ≥ 1}. 0]} and the encoding of the input string. This grammar has a high degree of ambiguity. n]}. generate all items that are new immediate consequences of the trigger item together with all items in the chart. {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1}. {ww|w ∈ {a. • {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm |n ≥ 1}. the goal is proved (and the string recognized). 0. • The mix language {w|w ∈ {a. otherwise it is not. The axioms correspond to the initial item in the Parsing Schema: DInit = { [(#. 0). IMPLEMENTATION 97 (c) If the trigger item was added to the chart. S → S • . Tests on the following languages were performed: • {an bn cn |n ≥ 1}. If a goal item is in the chart. 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. {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm in j n |n ≥ 1} • {an bn wwcn dn |n ≥ 1. b}+ } • Grammar Gamb4 which generates aabbcdcd but does not generate aabbcddc nor aabbdccd.

aj β 2 β. ∗ ∗ rm rm ∗ . 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 . The sets that deﬁne the states in GIG LR parsing are composed by a pair of sets (IT. 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.100 MCopy L. the technique we present here converts an LR GIG into a deterministic LR-2PDA according to the deﬁnition presented in Chapter 2. We use this notion of viable preﬁxes to describe the computation of the rm rm ∗ main stack in a LR-2PDA.ai Aβ ⇒ δγ j a1 . 5.1 LR items and viable preﬁxes We assume the reader has knowledge of LR parsing techniques (cf. In the GIG case. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS n4 1296 10. Both [75] and [3] describe transformations of Earley Parsing Schemata to LR Parsing Schemata.000 ≈6.000 20. ≈ 100 ≈ 400 ≈ 700 ≈ 1.6 LR parsing for GILs An LR parser for a CFL is essentially a compiler that converts an LR CFG into a DPDA automaton (cf.6. We will refer to the connections between Earley parsing and LR parsing to clarify this presentation. This approach can be extended to a Generalized LR parsing approach. ≈ 500 ≈ 2..500 ≈2. It is also more complex because GIL derivation requires leftmost derivation for the stack operations.976 Mix L.736 50. 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. if multiple values are allowed in the parsing table (cf. 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.98 Length 6 9/10 12 15/16 18 CHAPTER 5. 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. [2]).625 104. [80]). [2]).800 5. We say a GIG item index pair [ δ.. [41].000 ≈ 28.500 ≈ 2.000 Copy L. Therefore the set of items has to encode the corresponding top-down prediction that aﬀects the stack of indices.000 ≈ 16. ≈ 300 ≈ 1. The similarities of Earley Parsing and LR parsing are made explicit in those transformations.100 ≈5.. IN ).000 ≈ 9..

For the GIG algorithm the set of items and possible index values cannot be determined only by the Closure operation. {i. the goto function and the parsing table. b}∗ }. ι) = {(B → • γ.5. 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.2 The Closure Operation. b}. S → cR 6. #. LR PARSING FOR GILS 99 5.The transitions of this NFA are of the following form: δ(A → α • Bβ. . S → aS i 2. then closure(IT ) is the set of items constructed from IT by the two rules: 1. For CFG parsing (cf. R → Ra ¯ i 5. Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to the closure of IT . j}. If A → α • Bβ is in closure(IT ) and (i) B → γ is a production where δ is in I ∪ { }.6. ) = {B → • γ |B → γ is a production } (a NFA transition) In the GIG case the transitions should be as follows. If IT is a set of items for a grammar G. R}. P ) and P is: 1. Gwcw = ({S. Example 21 L(Gwcw ) = {wcw |w ∈ {a.[3]).6. The Closure operation is equivalent to the Predict function in Earley parsing (cf. ¯ 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. if the index operation is for instance ¯: ι δ(A → α • Bβ. 2. [41]) the Closure operation is equivalent to obtaining the set of states of a NFA that recognizes the viable preﬁxes. {a. The following example uses a grammar for the language Lwcw to depict the construction of the set of items. They are also determined by the Goto operation. ) |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. R → [#] 4. R → Rb ¯ j The set of states for the grammar Gwcw should encode the possible conﬁgurations of the stack of indices as follows: . every item in IT is added to closure(IT ). Initially. S → bS j 3. 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.

IN ) is deﬁned to be the pair (IT 2 . the Goto function in the GIG case is a PDA and the set of viable preﬁxes with associated indices is a context-free language.ιj ) in other words. X. then goto(I. #} {i. j. ι) = (I j . if µ µ I is the set of items that are valid for some viable preﬁx γ.ι). 5. j. j.IN 2 ) where either 1 or 2 applies: . where IT is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol. then goto(I. We will say an index i is in IN if (i.23: Set of States for Gwcw In the same way that the dot implies that some input symbols have been consumed. #} # # 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. X) is the set of items that are valid for the viable preﬁx γX. The CF Goto function is a DFA transition function where IT is in the state set and X is in the vocabulary. if I is the set of items that are valid for some viable preﬁx-index pairs (γ. ιj ). 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.100 I0 : # S → •S S → • aS i CHAPTER 5. is deﬁned to be the closure of the set of all items [A → αX • β] such that [A → α • Xβ] is in IT . We will describe the Goto function adding the possibility of computing the possible stack values of the PDA for each state. X. is the set of items that are valid of the viable preﬁx-index pairs (γX. X). 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.3 The Goto Operation. s) where i is an index symbol and s is a state deﬁned by a set of items closure. #} {i. s) is in IN .6. 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. The CF function goto(IT. The set I6 requires that the stack be empty. Intuitively. In the GIG case. The operation goto(IT.

The action table has three parameters. .e. .6. µ In other words. Case C: If α is not X is a terminal a then IN = IN 2 (i.24 with a PDA. [A → αa • β] is in IT 2 ) µ When the second parameter of the Goto function is 2. IT i ) is in IN 2 for every (δ. (e. [2]). The indices associated in each state are those indices that are represented also in ﬁgure 5. IT 2 is the closure of the set of all items [B → ¯ δ • then goto(IT. the auxiliary stack has the conﬁguration corresponding to the completed item B. LR PARSING FOR GILS 1. Case B: If X is a non-terminal B then IN 3 is in IN 2 such that [B → γ • ] is in (IT 3 .23. state. The construction of an LR parsing table is shown in the following algorithm. 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. 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 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. [#] indicates a transition that requires an empty stack and indicates that i the content of the stack is ignored). The construction of the collection of sets of items for a GIG grammar is made following the algorithm used for context free grammars.g. the possible values are: a) pairs of shift action and operations on the auxiliary stack: push. If µ is then IN is in IN 2 If µ is [δ] and δ is in IN then every (δ. The ﬁrst element of the pair is the symbol X and the second indicates the operation on the PDA stack (e. ¯ indicates a pop. input (or ) and auxiliary stack. IT i ) is in IN 2 . IN 3 ). The only changes are those made to the Closure and Goto operations as described above.5.: i indicates a push.g.e. IT 2 ). IT 2 ) is in IN 2 and IN is in predecessor(δ. IT i ) in IN is in IN 2 The Goto function for the grammar Gwcw is depicted in ﬁgure 5. [A → a • β] is in IT 2 ): µ If µ is δ in I then (δ. IT i ) in IN is in IN 2 ¯ If µ is δ and δ is in IN then predecessor(δ.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

b. a similar one can be obtained using the same strategy as we used with the comparative construction.c.3.] [b.c.5: Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language Gazdar further argues that the following tree structure.b. The arrows show the leftmost derivation order that is required by the operations on the stack.3 The Copy Language Gazdar presents the following two possible LIG structural descriptions for the copy language (depicted in ﬁgure 6.b.] AP AP AP [..a] [a] [.d] [c.b.a] [.b.c] a b A c [c] b Figure 6.1.c.a] [d.b.a] [a..c] NP [d. [.6 at the left.] A [b.5). APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [. However.a] c d d a [b...] A NP b [c] [a] [b.a] [c.110 CHAPTER 6.] NP AP [.c.d] a [b.] [a] a b c d [c.c.a] [c. 6.a] [a] [b.] a A a b [.] a b c d a b c d [b.a] [b.a] c A A [a. could . as in the LIG case.c] [c.b.. shown in ﬁgure 6.d] b [d] c d Figure 6.4: 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. the introduction of indices is dependent on the presence of lexical information and its transmission is not carried through a top-down spine.] NP NP c NP [..b. The structural description at the left can be generated by a GIG.] [.d] [d] [...d] [c. but not the one at the right... On the other hand.

a] ε a d [b.c.6 at the left either.c.a] [a] [d.c.c.a] c [a] b [] a [d. [] [a] [b.6.a] [a] a b a c [b.b. Such structure cannot be generated by a LIG. but can be generated by an IG.b.7: A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language .a] [c.a] [b.b.b.a] [b.b.c.a] c d d [c.6: An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language GIGs cannot produce the structural description of ﬁgure 6.a] [a] [a] [] [b.a] [a] a [] b Figure 6.1.6 (right). 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.b.d] a b c d [c.b. but they can generate the one presented in the ﬁgure 6.a] [a] [] [d.a] [d.c.c. where the arrows depict the leftmost derivation order.d] b c [d] d [b.d] [a.d] [a.d] [b.a] [d.a] [c.b.b.b.b.a] d c b [c.b.d] [c.c.b. [d] [c. GIGs can also produce similar structural descriptions for the language of multiple copies (the language {ww+ | w ∈ Σ∗ } as shown in ﬁgure 6.c.a] [b.c.d] [] [d.c.c.a] [a.a] [c. corresponding to the grammar shown in example 10.b.b.a] a b c d [c.a] [d.b.b.b.a] [b.7.c.d] [d] [d.a] b c d ε a Figure 6.a] [c.c.b.d] [b.a] [c.

f }.9: A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies GIGs can also produce other structures that cannot be produced by a LIG.] c [i] [i. The following language cannot be generated by LIGs.. The corresponding structure is depicted in the ﬁgure 6. c. The relevant structures that can be produced by a LIG are depicted in ﬁgures 6.] c c b [i.10 (at the right).] c c Figure 6.. as we show in ﬁgures 6.112 CHAPTER 6.8 and 6. L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}. Example 23 (Dependent branches) ..1.4 Multiple dependencies Gazdar does not discuss of the applicability of multiple dependency structures in [29].. GIGs can generate the same structures as in 6. It is mentioned in [82] in relation to the deﬁnition of composition in [79] Categorial Grammars. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6.8 and the somehow equivalent in 6.] [i.] [.] d [.11..i] [i] d [.9 (left).i] [i.i] [i] c c d [. which permits composition of functions with unbounded number of arguments and generates tree sets with dependent paths. S. Gsum = ({S.. F.i] d [i] b b [. P ) where P is: .i] d [i] b c d a a [i] b b [.] [i. {a.. d. b.. {i}.i] b [.] [i] a a [i. R.] [i] [. [... e. L}.8: LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies [.9 (right).10 and 6.] b Figure 6. #.

i] b [i] [i] c [.i] a [i] [i] [i.] c [i] a [i.] [i] a f [i..1.. The ﬁrst example is generated by the grammars Gcr presented in Chapter 3 and repeated here..i] f [..] [.i] [i.] [i. .] d [i] a c d b d e Figure 6.. GIGs can produce crossing dependencies with some alternative structures as depicted in the following structures.i] a c c [.i] [i..5 Crossing dependencies Crossing dependencies in LIGs and TAGs have the same structural description as the copy language.] c [i.i] [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 [...6.10: GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies [.11: GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies 6.] d d ε b Figure 6.i] a b b c [i] [.] [i] a [.i] [i.1.

The following kind of dependencies can be obtained: Example 25 (Crossing Dependencies 2) . where Gcr = ({S. m ≥ 1}. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS L(Gcr ) = {an bm cn dm | n.114 Example 24 (Crossing Dependencies) . b. 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 . h}. A. C}. where Gcr8 = ({S. 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). {x}. {x. S. g. d. B. {a. e. C}. #. d}. {a. #. A. L(Gcr8 ) = {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm | n. b. S. m ≥ 1}. CHAPTER 6. y}. c. c. f. P ) and P is: S→AD A→aAc|aBc 3.

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

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

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

.] c c d d b Figure 6.15: LIGs not in push-GNF II These languages do not seem to be obtainable with a LIG in push-GNF.i] d [i] b b [. However.e.. both right and left) for push productions. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [.] [i] b [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.] [i] [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. The problem is that they require the two directions of recursion (i.118 [.i] [i] [. They are however generated by GIGs as shown in ﬁgure 6.] c c d CHAPTER 6. this alternative ...

Those structural descriptions corresponding to ﬁgure 6. Such compilation process allowed the identiﬁcation of signiﬁcant parts of HPSG grammars that were mildly context-sensitive. 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. and others which are beyond the descriptive power of LIGs and TAGs.3.6. Therefore. [39]) to allow to push/pop several symbols from the stack. [8]). [48].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. Also the symbols will be interpreted relative to the elements in the top of the stack (as a Dyck set). One of the motivations was the potential to improve the processing eﬃciency of HPSG.3 GIGs and HPSGs We showed in the last section how GIGs can produce structural descriptions similar to those of LIGs. It is a standard change in PDAs (cf. In this section. There has been some work compiling HPSGs into TAGs (cf. 6. diﬀerent derivations . This does not change the power of the formalism. We will allow the productions of a GIG to be annotated with ﬁnite strings in I ∪ I instead of single symbols. This follows from the ability of GIGs to capture dependencies through diﬀerent paths in the derivation. by performing HPSG derivations at compile time. 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.16: LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs should be considered in detail.

according to what is on the top of the stack. an how the elements contained in the stack can be correlated to constituents or lexical items (terminal symbols) in a constituent recognition process. HEAD 1 SUBJ < > H SUBJ 2 1 HEAD SUBJ < 2 > Figure 6. This is exempliﬁed with the productions X → x and X → x. 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.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). 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. The arrows indicate how the transmission of features is encoded in the leftmost derivation order. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS might be produced using the same production. obtaining very similar structural descriptions. Example 27 (intransitive verb) XP → Y P XP XP → X YP →Y X→x nv ¯ Y →y n .17 depicts the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Subject Schema in HPSG [61].120 CHAPTER 6.17: 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.

] XP [v..6...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 .] XP [v. corresponding to the deriva- .. 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 6.3.19: Head-Comps Schema tree representation Figure 6. 3 n > Figure 6. The following GIG productions generate the structural description corresponding to ﬁgure 6. 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 .] y [v..] Y [n.] 121 YP [n. where the initial conﬁguration of the stack is assumed to be [n]: Example 28 (transitive verb) .19 shows the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Complement schema in HPSG.] X x Figure 6. GIGS AND HPSGS [.20..21.

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. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS XP [ v ] X [n v] [n v] CP [ v ] Y [v] CP x y ε 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 29.122 [n] CHAPTER 6. Example 29 (SLASH in GIG format) . We show the contents of the stack when each lexical item is introduced in the derivation. ∗ .

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 6.6.3. 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 ∗ .21: SLASH in GIG format Example 30 (SLASH and Coordination2) .

124 #W ho did you visit and talk to XP CHAPTER 6.22: SLASH and coordination in GIG format . 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.

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

We deﬁned deterministic LR-2PDAs and deterministic GILs. A candidate pumping lemma for GILs was suggested. The relationships between GILs LILs and ILs is still an open question. we did not explore the properties of the class of deterministic GILs. except the emptiness problem. and the membership problem. however it is not clear to us if such a pumping lemma would provide an additional tool beyond the result already obtained on semilinearity. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORK generate dependent paths without copying the stack but distributing the control in diﬀerent paths through the leftmost derivation order. In this case. 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.126 CHAPTER 7. exploiting the ability of GIGs to encode dependencies through connected dependent paths and not only through a spine. the proof should be considered in detail. GILs and GCSLs are incomparable but trGILs might be a properly included in GCSLs. which follows as a corollary from the semi-linearity property. 7. We also mentioned the issue of ambiguity and we deﬁned GILs with deterministic indexing. and we gave an algorithm to parse LR(k) GILs. 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). should be addressed. We mention now some of the issues that might be addressed in future research. The similarity of GIGs and counter automata. 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 . however. We have not addressed most of the decision problems. However. it is harder to determine whether GILs with deterministic indexing are a proper subset of the Global Index Languages. coupled context-free grammars among other formalisms.1 Future Work The results described in the previous section are encouraging enough to continue further work concerning Global Index Languages. We gave an Earley algorithm for GIGs . this class might not have any theoretical import besides the fact that the recognition problem is in O(n3 ). Although they do seem to be. We have established some coarse-grain relations with other families of languages (CFLs and CSLs).

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

The variable membership problem: Succinctness versus complexity. Italy. Lorys. 1994.. LR Parsing for Global Index Languages (GILs). January 1999. Languages and Programming. INRIA. February 16-22.130 BIBLIOGRAPHY [9] R. Lorys. [17] J. Boullier.. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Buntrock and K. In Automata. France. and range concatenation grammars. Mach. [15] G. Niemann. volume 900. Book. [19] J. [14] G. pages 77–88. Conﬂuent and other types of thue systems. Proceedings of the ACL-2003 Student ¨ Research Workshop. On the applicability of global index grammars. pages 595–606. A generalization of mildly context-sensitive formalisms. [11] P. [13] G. Research Report RR-3614. Casta˜o. pages 15–22. Buntrock and G. n Santa Barbara. . Assoc. GIGs: Restricted context-sensitive descriptive power in bounded polynomial-time. J. [16] G. In Sandra K n ubler Kotaro Funakoshi and Jahna Otterbacher. Comput. mix. editors. Philadelphia.CA. n In Proc. Buntrock and K. Casta˜o. [10] P. Boullier. Buntrock and F. 1982. 1992. 14 pages. Mexico City. In TAG Workshop. scrambling. Boullier. In Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. Trento. Growing context sensitive languages and church-rosser languages. 1996. Chinese numbers. [12] P. Casta˜o. of Cicling 2003. In Proceedings of the 12th Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science. 1995. Rocquencourt. 2003. 2003. In In Proceeding of CIAA 2003. [18] J. pages 53–64. Range concatenation grammars. Weakly growing context-sensitive grammars. 2003. Otto. February 2000. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT2000). On growing context-sensitive languages. 29:171–182. 1998. Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science.

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

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

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

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

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

of the 25th ACL. Information and Control. Weir. Theoretical Computer Science. K. Lecture notes in computer science. 1976. 13:31–46. 1998. pages 104–111. Workman. Grammars. Derivational minimalism. 1999. pages 523–568. 1997. Massachusetts. Joshi. Weir. A. On the concatenation of one-turn pushdowns. CA. A. 1987. J. Sipser. Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. J. Wartena. Tomita. [84] C. [88] D. Computational linguistics. 1988. [80] M. Grammars with composite storages. 32 No. In COLING-ACL. 2:188–200. 1998. University of Pennsylvania. 17:41–61. V. [85] Ch. [79] M. Vijay-Shanker. Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. Turn-bounded grammars and their relation to ultralinear languages. Deterministic context-sensitive languages: Part II. An eﬃciente augmented-context-free parsing algorithm. 1985. Boston. 104(2):235–261. and A. [86] D. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. [82] K. Weir. Language. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL ’98). pages 1333–1339. In Proc. 1970. Steedman. A tabular interpretation of a class of 2-stack automata. . Walters. [83] D. 1997. P. 1987. Information and Control. 1992. [78] E. Stanford. [81] E. pages 11–14. Grenoble. PWS Publishing Company. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of dutch and english. Wartena. A. de la Clergerie and M. [87] D. Stabler. Pardo. PhD thesis. 1328.136 BIBLIOGRAPHY [77] M. A geometric hierarchy beyond context-free languages. D. pages 259–269.

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Lab Prgrms30
- Algorithms by Codewell
- npdadoc
- 141353-LM
- english
- TESOL-Program.pdf
- They Are Rapid Methods for the Investigation of the Language
- 9A05407 Formal Languages and Automata Theory
- H6-sol
- Teaching Children
- Capitolul II Corectat Final
- Hybrid Systems Modeling
- Writing Rubric
- dikarezkyana
- Chapter 1
- Help Sts Enjoy Grammar
- MELJUN CORTES CS113_StudyGuide_chap7
- CS301_2nd_Assignment Idea Solution Fall 2011
- Data Structures & System Programming Lab File
- Reviewing the Puzzle of CLIL
- Reviewing the Puzzle of CLIL, Ioannou Georgiou READ
- Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 5th Printing Janua Linguarum Series Minor 38
- Getting People to Say Yes
- ESP
- teaching grammar.docx
- Teacher's Guide Year 3 SK & SJK
- English_Teacher_Guidebook_Year_2.pdf
- english
- BI Teacher Guidebook Year 2
- PANDUAN GURU
- 10.1.1.121.8248

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.