Global Index Languages

A Dissertation

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

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

by Jos´ M. Casta˜o e n February, 2004

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Adam Jaffe, Dean of Arts and Sciences

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . . . . .2 Global Index Grammars . . . . . . . .2 Closure Properties of GILs . . . . . . . . . .1 Relations to other families of languages . . . . . . . finite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Comparison with TM.Contents vii Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures 1 Introduction 1. . . . . .1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines . . . . . .3 Semilinearity of GILs and the Constant Growth property 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . 2. . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . .3 GILs and Dyck Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . 2. .2 Left Restricted 2 Stack Push Down Automatas (LR-2PDAs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 GILs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. .2 GIGs examples . . . . . . 2. .1 trGIGS . . . .2 Outline of the Thesis and Description of the .5 Determinism in LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Examples of LR-2PDAs . . . . .2. . . 3. . . 4. . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . 3. . . . .1. . . . . . . .2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack . . . . .2. . . xiii . . . . . . . . . . .3 Our proposal . . . .1 Natural Language . . . . . . .1 Indexed Grammars and Linear Indexed Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Global Index Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs . . . . . . . .5.1. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4. . . . . . . . . . . .2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Automata with two Stacks . . . . . . . . . PDA and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . .2 Biology and the Language of DNA . .1 Deterministic LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . 1. . .

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

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

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

well understood and most widely applicable part of formal language theory. The purpose of this thesis is to explore an alternative formalism with restricted context-sensitivity and computational tractability. [7.1 Introduction Context-free grammars (CFGs) constitute perhaps the most developed. for the following areas: • Natural Language modeling and processing. closure properties). Many formalisms have been proposed to extend the power of context-free grammars using control devices.g. semilinearity property. Such a model is relevant. 59]). 1 .Chapter 1 Introduction 1. polynomial parsability. • Computational Biology • Possibly also relevant to programming languages which might use context sensitive features (like Algol 60). However there are many problems that cannot be described by context-free languages. The appeal of this approach is that many of the attractive properties of context-free languages are preserved (e. In an automaton model those extensions either use constrained embedded or additional stacks (cf. In [25] seven situations which cannot be described with a context-free framework are given. We try to obtain a model with efficient computation properties. 81. where the control device is a context-free grammar (see [87] and [26] regarding control languages). at least.

{an bn cn dn | n ≥ 1}. – crossed agreements. Weir’s [87]. INTRODUCTION Such models can be generalized and additional control levels.2 CHAPTER 1. Examples of those related hierarchies are: Khabbaz’s [49].3 It has been claimed that a NL model must have the following properties:4 1 See 2 The for example [73. They form hierarchies of levels of languages. there is increasing consensus1 on the necessity of formalisms more powerful than CFGs to account certain typical natural languages constructions. We will focus in natural language problems from a language theoretic point of view. scrambling. leading to languages of the form {ww |w ∈ Σ∗ } – multiple agreements. corresponding to languages of the form {an bn cn | n ≥ 1}. 29]. among others. As a consequence those generalizations provide more expressive power but at a computational cost.1. Georgian Case and Chinese numbers) might be considered 3 However to be beyond certain mildly context-sensitive formalisms. 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. 47] on semi-linearity. where a language of level k properly includes a language of level k − 1.1 Natural Language Regarding natural languages (one of the seven cases mentioned above). additional levels of embeddedness. that can be modeled with GILs. [46. and multi-push-down grammars [21]. etc. We will exemplify this issue with some properties of natural language and we will consider some biology phenomena. The complexity of the recognition problem is dependent on the language level. In general. 86] and [55. following type of languages are also relevant to model molecular biology phenomena [70] there are other phenomena (e. 4 See for example. 23. 1. These constructions are exemplified as [26]:2 – reduplication. in particular related to the so called Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms. . Within Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms we focus on Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) which are weakly equivalent.g. or additional stacks can be added. multiple context free grammars [71]. 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.

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

However. 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. 38. and the related Literal Movement Grammars (LMGs).2 Biology and the Language of DNA Recently. Searls [70. 66] is another formalism with some mildly context sensitive characteristics. There are other formalisms related to mildly context-sensitive languages that are not characterized by a hierarchy of grammar levels. Range Concatenative Grammars [34. u ¯ . recombination. 87]. He shows that the language of nucleic acids is not regular. mutation and rearrangements. conformation of macromolecules and the computational analysis of sequence data are problems which have been approached from such a perspective. Multivalued Linear Indexed Grammars [63]. Those problems which are beyond context free are: Tandem Repeats (multiple copies). 54]. 69]). gene structure and expression. 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). Gene regulation. and m the number of terms in the productions. Tree Description Grammars [47] are other such examples. 1. 12]. Pseudoknots (crossing dependencies) represented as: Lk = {uv¯R v R }. 68] proposes a grammar model to capture the language of DNA. 10. 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. that it is ambiguous and that it is not context-free.4 CHAPTER 1. Contextual Grammars [52. Direct Repeats (the copy language). 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. nor deterministic nor linear. Contextual Languages do not properly include context-free languages. For LMGs the complexity of the recognition problem is O(|G|m(+p)n1 +m+2p ) where p is the arity of the predicates. or ordering) the recognition problem is in O(n3 ·2 k −1 ) [86.1. Some of those formalisms are: Minimalist grammars [78. In this case the complexity of the recognition problem is a bound polynomial: O(n6 ) space and O(n9 ) time [36].

inverted repeats. and they are able to describe those phenomena. 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. which is in time O(n6 ).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.1. which we call Global Index Languages.1.1. 1. k ≥ 2} any number of agreements or dependencies. which is conjectured not to be an Indexed Language. there is no correlation between the descriptive power (regarding the three phenomena we mentioned) and the time complexity of the recognition problem. are characteristic of the language of DNA. However there is no known algorithm that decides the recognition problem for String Variable Languages. or interleaved repeats. in the model we present here. We will also show that it is able to describe phenomena relevant both to natural language and biology. (GILs). and proposed a formal grammar [65] corresponding to the language that can be parsed using such an algorithm. however there are many GI languages which do not belong to the set of Linear Indexed Languages . • L(Ggenabc ) = {an (bn cn )+ | n ≥ 1} unbounded number of agreements. He proposed String Variable Grammars to model the language of DNA.. • L(Gmix ) = {w|w ∈ {a. 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. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 1} The mix language. • L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}.ak n | n ≥ 1.. • L(Gwwn ) = {ww+ |w ∈ {a. The following languages can be generated by a Global Index Grammar: • Lm = {a1 n a2 n . b. combinations. dependent branches There are many similarities between Linear Indexed Grammars and Global Index Grammars. String Variable Languages are a subset of Indexed Languages. INTRODUCTION 5 Unbounded number of repeats.

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

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

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

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. 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.[7. 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. also generalized models of multistacks (e. Restricted classes of PDA with two stacks (2-PDA) were proposed as equivalent to a second order EPDA1 . 9 . 84.. [41]). 83..g. and n-Stack PDA. (e.g. but behaves like a PDA..Chapter 2 Two Stack Push Down Automata 2. 85]. 81. or multi-store PDAs as equivalent to n-order EPDA. 59] [21.[31. 9]. Consequently it is possible to simulate the capacity that a TM 1 See [7.2 It is well known that an unrestricted 2-PDA is equivalent to a Turing Machine (cf. 2 E.1 Automata with two Stacks Different models of 2-Stack Push Down Automata have been proposed. We need to guarantee that the proposed automaton model does not have the power of a Turing Machine. 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. 21.g. 84]).

stack symbol)= (new state. st2 . current state. either reading or replacing symbols. is similar to a PDA. Its expressive power is beyond PDA (context free grammars) and possibly beyond EPDA (e. In order to simulate these movements in a 2-PDA.. 13]). TAGs). Alternatively. a 2nd order PDA in the progression hierarchy presented in [86].. except that the push-down store may be a sequence of stacks. 2..3 we define the LR-2PDA. sbm . the input might be initially stored in the second stack (e. In 2. and st1 . stn ) where sb1 .. . ..3.10 CHAPTER 2.. stn are stacks introduced above the current stack. 3 We might restrict even more the operation of the auxiliary stack disallowing moves that pop symbols from the auxiliary Stack. because once the input is consumed.3 These constraints force a left to right operation mode on the input in the LR-2PDA. .. push/pop on current stack. the input must be consumed and it must be possible to transfer symbols from one stack to the other. Consequently it is possible to “use” the information stored in the auxiliary stack only once..1.. Given that it is not possible to re-store them again in the auxiliary stack. they cannot be recovered (unless some more input is consumed). M’. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA has to move from left to right and from right to left. “erases” the symbols as they are removed from the stack. sb2 . PDAs. 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). However transitions that push a symbol into the second auxiliary stack do not allow moves. Consequently this would produce a more restricted set of languages.st1 . It is initiated as a PDA but may create new stacks above and below the current stack. .g. Then a transition function looks like (from [45]): δ (input symbol. . sb1 .. and the LR-2-PDA is presented in section 2. sb2 ....g. In the next two subsections we review some models that proposed 2-stack or nested stack automata.. Moving back to the left. it is not possible to write into the auxiliary stack. A more detailed comparison of TMs. sbm are a finite number of stacks introduced below the current stack. st2 . The number of stacks is specified in each move. [83.1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines An EPDA.

so as to separate different sub-stacks. 59]. 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. The possible moves for a 2-SA automaton are the following [7]: • Read a symbol from the input tape . 81. Symbols written in the second stack can be accessed only after the preceding stack is empty. It allows the NPDA.2. They also require the use of a symbol for the bottom of the stack. for instance. to recognize crossed dependencies as in the example depicted in the next figure: Figure 2.1. they use the additional stack in the same way as the embedded stacks are used in the EPDA.1: Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) 2 Stack automata (2-SA) were shown to be equivalent to EPDA [7.

q 0 . b}∗ } belongs to CSL \ GCSLs. where • Q is the finite set of states. F ). 58]. GCSLs are a proper subclass of CSLs: The Gladkij language {w#wR #w | w ∈ {a. n . ⊥. 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). The TPDA initializes the input in one of the stacks. δ. is defined as follows: Definition 1 a) A TPDA is a 7-tuple M = (Q. • remove bottom of the stack symbols. Σ. But this restriction is not related to conditions on the the main stack but to conditions on the input.1. Γ. • pop a symbol from the auxiliary stack provided the main stack contains the bottom of the stack symbol • create a new set of empty stacks (add a string of bottom of the stack symbols). Growing Context Sensitive Languages (defined by a syntactic restriction on context sensitive grammars) and the corresponding model of two pushdown automata (see [24. In [16] Buntrock and Otto’s Growing Context Sensitive Languages (GCSLs) are characterized by means of the Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata (sTPDA). The kind of automata we present implements a restriction on the writing conditions on the additional stack. or pop a symbol from. The recognition problem for growing context sensitive grammars is NP-complete ( [14]). 53. The reading/writing restriction is related to the requirement that the preceding stacks be empty. GCSLs contain the non-context-free and non-semi-linear {a2 |n ≥ 0} [16] The copy language is not a GCSL {ww|w ∈ {a. and the alternative restriction with respect to writing. but {an bn cn |n ≥ 1} is a GCSL. 2.2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata Recently there has been interest on Church-Rosser Languages. b}∗ }. 16.12 CHAPTER 2. The shrinking-TPDA. 15. the main stack • push a string onto the auxiliary stack. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA • push a string onto.

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

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

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

1. a. In order to avoid the possibility of transferring symbols from one stack to the other indefinitely. from left to right. . The corresponding machine is detailed below in the exsection 2. (q 1 . a. While recognizing the second copy all the information stored about the first copy is lost. the second storage can be written to only when consuming input. . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA A LR-2PDA: The input can be transversed only once. . a) = (q 2 . 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. The crucial fact is that transitions type c. whatever remains at the right is forgotten).4. a LR-2PDA is not able to transverse a substring indefinitely. if information from the first ordered stack is transferred to the second auxiliary stack. a. an LR-PDA can recognize the language L3 = {www | w ∈ Σ∗ }. ) = (q 1 . 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. then the possibility of storing information from the input seen at this move is lost. 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∗ }. Transfer from one stack to the other is restricted. a) (store the symbols of the first copy) 2. . given the constraints imposed on LR-2PDAs. ) (transfer symbols from auxiliary to main stack) 3.16 CHAPTER 2. consequently what is being read cannot be stored in the main or the auxiliary stack if there is a transferral occurring. (q 3 . . This exemplifies how many times (and the directions in which) the same substring can be transversed. 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). (above) . u) = (q 3 . There are two work- spaces which also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. a. but unlike a TM. (q 2 . However. Consider the following transitions (where a is a symbol in Σ). au) (recognize the second copy using the symbols stored in the main stack. but it can store again in the second stack (the second copy).

δ. Independent moving. w ∈ Σ∗ and |w| ≤ |u|} is recognized by a sLR-2PDA. ⊥. e}. q 3 }. {a. Writes left to right or same cell Independent both operations. Independent both operations. Figure 2. b. {x}. Transfer possible Dependent writing from 1.4 Examples of LR-2PDAs The first example is a sLR-2PDA.4. Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing. d. Writes left to right or same cell Transfer NOT possible Dependent writing from 1. q 0 .5: sLR-2PDA 2. q 3 ) where δ: .2. M 5 = ({q 0 . Moves to the left erasing. However the language L = {wuw | u. q 1 . 17 Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing. Examples 2 and 3 are LR-2PDAs. q 2 . Dependent moving (erasing) Figure 2. c. Moves to the left erasing. EXAMPLES OF LR-2PDAS Reads left to right only. Reads left to right only.4: LR-2PDA are not allowed. Example 1 (Multiple Agreements) .

. ⊥. ε ) ( [] . ε ) 4 ( d . $) = accept (c.$. ε ) ( [] . . x. ⊥. ε) = (a$. δ(q 1 . ε ) 1 (a. $ .a’) = (cc. xx. x. . a’ ) = ( ε. there is an sLR-2PDA that recognizes the language L(M k ) = {an an . xx}) 5. ε ) 3 ( [] . c. δ(q 1 . δ(q 2 .18 Three counting dependencies M1 0 CHAPTER 2. x⊥. . x.$. $) = ( ε. e. ⊥. ⊥)} 8. $ . c’$) 4 4 ( d . δ(q 1 . ε ) (c. ⊥.. ⊥) = {(q 1 . ).a. ε ) = (aa. e. b. $ . xx} 9. δ(q 1 . δ(q 1 . δ(q 2 . )} 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 . ε ) (b. )} 11.a’$) Idem 2 (b. . $ . ε) ( d .a’) = (c$. δ(q 0 . b. x) = {(q 2 . ⊥. c . x) = {(q 2 . c’) = ( ε.6: Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA 1. ⊥) = {(q 1 . $) = ( ε.an | n ≥ 1} 1 2 k . $) ( d . . .a’) = ($. c’) = ( $ . d. x. x) = {(q 1 . ⊥.a’a’) (c. ε ) Idem 3 (c. )} 10. c . ak }. (q 2 . ⊥. ⊥) = {(q 1 .a. a.a’) = ($. where k > 3. a. x) = {(q 1 . δ(q 1 . x⊥).. x⊥)} 4. )} 7. d. xx. ⊥)} 2.a. $ . c’c’) ( e . ε ) = ( ε. $ . c . δ(q 1 . ⊥) = {(q 2 . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA Four Counting Dependencies M2 Five Counting dependencies M3 (a. c . x. c’) = ( $ .. ⊥)} 12. ⊥. )} 6.. (q 1 . ⊥)} 3. $ ) = (ε .. x) = {(q 1 . $) = accept 6 Figure 2. c . ⊥) = {(q 1 . c. ⊥. d. x. x. δ(q 2 .$. x⊥. c. $) = accept 5 5 ( e. δ(q 1 . x) = {(q 2 . x) = {(q 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. ⊥. a1 . Σ. x) = {(q 2 . ao . y) = {(q 2 . . yu)} 5. δ(q 3 . δ(q 1 . . x) = {(q 2 . )} if k is odd or 10. ⊥) = {(q 3 . a2 . y}. ⊥. . . y⊥. ae ⊥)} 8. ⊥. u) = {(q 1 . q 2 ) where δ is as follows. ⊥) = {(q 1 . ⊥. ⊥) = {(q 1 . a1 .t. EXAMPLES OF LR-2PDAS Proof Construct the sLR-2PDA M k as follows: 19 M k = ({q 0 . a1 . x⊥). ⊥. (q 3 . ⊥. δ(q 1 . . ⊥) = {(q 3 . δ(q 0 . xu)} 4. ⊥)} 13. ak . )} 7. b. ⊥. δ(q 1 . a. )} . ⊥)} 12. a. b. δ(q 1 . x⊥)} 2. ae ae } and 9. δ(q 1 . ao ao . q 1 . q 3 ) where δ (s. Example 2 (The language of multiple copies) M wwn = ({q 0 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . q 2 . (q 3 . x. . δ(q 1 . a2 ⊥)} 4. . y⊥)} 3. ⊥. a1 a1 . xu). q 3 }. ao . ⊥) = {(q 2 . ⊥)} 10. ⊥. a2 ) = {(q 1 . ⊥. ae−1 . a. transitions 5 to 8. . such that o. ⊥. ae . δ(q 3 . w. ⊥)} 3. ak −1 .4. ae−1 . )} 7. x⊥. . a2 a2 }) 5. a1 . {x. ⊥. )} 14. transitions 1 to 4 recognize the first occurrence of w. q 0 . b. b. ⊥. ⊥. ao . transitions 9 to 12 recognize either the following copy or the last copy. ak . δ(q 2 . y⊥). Σ. δ(q 2 . y) = {(q 2 . δ(q 3 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . ⊥)} 11. b}+ } 8. a1 ⊥. x⊥. u) = {(q 1 . ao ⊥. . ⊥. y⊥. )} 6. . δ(q 2 . δ(q 3 . (q 3 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . a. )} 9. δ(q 1 . ak −1 ) = {(q 2 . y) = {(q 2 . ⊥. u is any symbol in the vocabulary): 1. . δ. . xw. . x. δ(q 1 . ⊥) = {(q 1 . . (q 3 . ⊥)} if k is even. u) = {(q 3 . ⊥)} 2. δ(q 1 . a2 . q 2 }. )} 6. ao−1 ) = {(q 1 . ae ) = {(q 1 . ae . δ(q 0 . . y. a1 . reverse the order of the stored symbols.2. y. δ(q 2 . b}. . q 0 . x) = {(q 2 . q 1 . w. δ(q 1 . {a. . ⊥. ⊥. u) = {(q 3 . δ(q 1 . e ≥ 3 < k and o is odd and e is even: 1. ao−1 ) = {(q 1 . δ(q 0 . δ(q 1 . In the next example. )} L(M 4 ) = {ww+ |w ∈ {a. . yu). yw. δ(q 1 . δ.

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

j) 4. a. I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ.2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack Even if a GIG grammar is non-deterministic. ) is nonempty. in the following examples of transitions. Z. Z. A ∈ Σ and Z. ) = (q. (q.5. Z. whenever δ(q. Z. a. . I j ) such that I i = I j . i) = (q. b. . Z i . . then δ(q. j) 2. 2. I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. We can regard to be an abbreviation for all the possible symbols in the top of the stack. I ∈ Γ. j) = (q. 3. I ∈ Γ. for each q ∈ Q and Z. Condition 2 prevents the choice of move for any equal 4-tuple. . (q. nor with the fourth. I i ) and (q j . A. If the non-determinism is in the CFG backbone only we can guarantee that the recognition problem is in O(n3 ). then δ(q. . 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. ) = (q. or is a deterministic indexing LR-2PDA if and only if: 1. 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. whenever δ(q. Z. the first case is not compatible with the third. a. ) 2.5. I ∈ Γ. Z j . a. Z. and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q. for no q ∈ Q. for each q ∈ Q. The construction of the LR(k) parsing tables would show whether the indexing mechanism for a given GIG is non-deterministic. A. . . I) is nonempty. (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. a. I) contain two elements = (q i . Therefore. (q. Definition 5 A LR-2PDA has a deterministic indexing. . i) 3. 1. .2. because they imply a non-deterministic choice.

22 CHAPTER 2. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA .

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

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

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

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).. The derives definition requires a leftmost derivation for those rules (push and pop rules) that affect the stack of indices.. A → a β x ¯ or [x.X n is a production of type (c. x ∈ I. then: µ δ#wAγ ⇒ xδ#waX k .. IGs. but to an extreme: there is only one stack to be considered. Indeed push rules (type b) are constrained to start the right-hand side with a terminal as specified in GIG’s definition (6. If A → X 1 . with the consequence that LILs are semilinear.26 CHAPTER 3.1 trGIGS We now define trGIGs as GIGs where the pop rules (type c. then: ¯ xδ#wAγ ⇒ δ#wX 1 .2.. β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ ... ∗ 3. If A → aX 1 .) are constrained to start with a terminal in a similar way as push (type b. Definition 7 A trGIG is a GIG where the set of production of types (c) (pop) rules..] a β .. is the interpretation of the derives relation relative to the behavior of the stack of indices.) or push: µ = x... where x ∈ I. are as follows. GIGs can have rules where the right-hand side of the rule is composed only of terminals and affects the stack of indices. This produces the effect that there is only one stack affected at each derivation step. x ∈ I.. and a ∈ T : c.X n γ ) x 3. Unlike LIGs and IGs. GIGs share this uniqueness of the stack with LIGs.) rules in GIGs. α.X n γ µ ( or δ#wAγ ⇒ xδ#waX 1 .) or pop : µ = x.X n γ ) x ¯ ∗ The reflexive and transitive closure of ⇒ is denoted as usual by ⇒..b) (in other words push productions must be in Greibach Normal Form). 2.. We define the language of a GIG G.. A ∈ N . L(G) to be: {w|#S ⇒ #w and w is in T ∗ } It can be observed that the main difference between. In LIGs indices are associated with only one non-terminal at the right-hand side of the rule. LIGs and GIGs... the stack of indices in a GIG is independent of non-terminals in the GIG case. We also introduce some examples of trGIGs modeling multiple agreements and crossed dependencies. x ∈ I.]A → [.X n is a production of type (b.X n γ ( or xδ#wAγ ⇒ δ#wX 1 .. In IGs the stacks of indices are distributed over the non-terminals on the right-hand side of the rule.

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

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

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

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). 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 ). 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). n = 3: S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #abc k ¯ k ¯ k is clearly in the language. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS language is indeed Lmix . b. Second direction: Lmix is in L(Gmix ) Basis n = 0. First direction: L(Gmix ) is in Lmix = {w|w ∈ {a. 2. 1. Proof . and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation. we reach the following point: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . w = w c2 and y = a2 y b2 trigger the following derivation (perhaps the only one). This blocking effect can be illustrated by the following hypothetical situation: suppose uwyz might be composed by u = u b1 . with the one proposed in 2. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 0}. n ≥ 0. S ⇒ jδ #u bS ⇒ δ#u bSaScS ⇒ iδ #u bw caScS ⇒ δ #u bw caay bcS If we try to combine the derivation proposed in 1. We show ¯ ¯ that Gmix generates any uti wti y ti z It is trivial to see that the following derivation is obtained (where a corresponds to tk and b and c ¯ to the tk ’s. b s and c s due to the constraint imposed by the indexing mechanism. Where ¯ ¯ t1 t2 t3 is any string of length three in Lmix and t designates the terminals that introduce the indices ¯ in the derivation.30 CHAPTER 3. y = a1 y c1 z. where ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ |uwyz| = n. S ⇒ δ#uS ⇒ kδ#uaS ⇒ δ#uaSbScS ⇒ δ #uawbScS But at this point the strings b and c might block a possible 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. there is no guarantee that the necessary sequence of indices are removed.. Case 2.. Case 1. because the grammar is highly ambiguous.2. there are three different indices (ti = tj = tk ): ti utj vtk .: baScacbS where the two non terminal S expand the ti n−1 triples. 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 . 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. 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 . 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 .3..ti )n ] And this problem is reduced to: ¯¯¯¯ tj ti S tj tj ti ti S i.. In other words.. clearly S ⇒ i#ti S ⇒ #ti Stj Stk S and the complements of ti . We show now that this situation is impossible and that therefore Lmix is in L(GMIX ).. removing the index j. tk . and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation.e. We need to account whether there is a possible configuration such that a conflict of indices arises.tj . . Therefore..(ti . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 3. 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 . tj are reduced to the case of two conflicting indices.

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

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

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

and we construct GwwD from Gww as follows: GwwD = ({S. S → aS i 2. S → bS j 3.4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA In this section we show the equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA. b}∪I = {i. S → S a ¯ i 7. ¯ 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. 2. S → b¯ bjS 7. i. Theorem 2 If L is a GIL. j}. ¯ = Σ∪Σ. {a. a. This is on our view a consequence of the fact that GIGs are a natural extension of CFGs. j}. P ) and P = ¯ b. . Σ = T = {a. S → S b ¯ j 6. S → S b ¯ j ¯ Let D4 be the semi-Dyck set defined over Σ0 = {a. ¯ i. #. z ∈ Dr so is u ia¯z¯ a and if φ(z) = y and φ(u ) = u then φ(u ia¯z¯ a) = uaza a ia¯ a ia¯ If other (possible) derivations were applied to u ia¯zC then the corresponding string would not a be in Dr . S }. j} ¯ b. b. {a. S → S ¯ a ia¯ 5. i. P ) and P = 1. S }. b}∗ } Given Gww = ({S.4. b. S → 4. then there exists a LR-2PDA M such that L= L(M).3. {i. S. #. S → 3. ¯ S. a. The proof is an extension of the equivalence proof between CFGs and PDAs. ¯ j. ¯ j. ¯ i. b}. S →S b¯¯ bj 4. j} CF Lww = L(GwwD ). S → a¯iS a 6. S →S a¯¯ ai 3. 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 . S → S a ¯ i 5. S → S b¯¯ bj 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iα ¯ i 4.46 CHAPTER 4.. note that S 2 is a subset of S 1 .. S. removing the pairs of ik and ¯k coordinates. The intersection of S 1 and S 2 is a computable semilinear set S 3 according to [30]. ip . Proof Given a GIG G = (N. This follows from Theorem 1. 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.4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs This section and the remainder of this chapter will present some exploratory ideas rather than established results. . GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES The proof exploits the properties of Theorem 1: every GIL L = φ(Dr ∩ L1) such that L1 is a CFL. For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T. Σ. ψ(L(G1)) is an effectively computable semi-linear set S 1 . S.. P 1) Define a CFG grammar G1 = (N.. ik . i ∈ I. removing the illegal derivations. am . We modify the construction of L1 in the proof of Theorem 1. 4. Dr and L1 are semilinear by the Parikh theorem (L1 and Dr are CFLs). and α. P ) such that ¯ Σ1 is (Σ ∪ I ∪ I) and P 1 is given according to the following conditions. if p = A → α then p1 = A → α 2. We can consider pumping lemmas for different families of languages as specifying the following facts about them: . in . in other words. ¯p )|aj .. as follows: 1.. I. ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new production p1 ∈ P 1. if p = A → α then p1 = A → iα i 3. From S3 we obtain S 0 the semilinear set corresponding to ψ(L(G)). By the Parikh theorem [60] the Parikh map of the CFL L(G1). #. Σ1 . Let S 2 be the semilinear set {(a1 . 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). ¯n . i Corollary 6 The emptiness problem is decidable for GILs. ¯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.

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

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

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

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

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

ir].[i.1) Adding to stack: <22732> item((i.il].0.[S.[].ir].B.d].2.[b].0) Adding to stack: <22605> item((i.c].2).[i.0.Adding to chart: <23724> item(S.ir].0) 2 Adding to chart: <27413> item(S.0.[a].[a.[].ir].[a].d].0) 3 Adding to chart: <23470> item(S.c].d].[].2.(i.3) 15.1) 8 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.0)) 4 Adding to chart: <10771> item(S.ir].2.[b. where P is: S → aSd.1. G2 = ({S.[].3.[#.3.[i.[i.1)) 7 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.2. Each item is represented as follows: item(LeftSymbol. B}.[#.[B.c]. OrderCounter.[a. [Stacksymbol.[].2.e].4.0. StackOperation].d].[i.2) 14.0.3.Adding to chart: <27671> item(S. {i}.Adding to chart: <23599> item(S.[].1.1) 6.2.3.2) 10.4) . Predotlist.1.[i.[a.3.1. #. {a.ir].c].2) 13.il].4.[B].e].[S. StackCounter.0. Adding to chart: <27798> item(B.il].[#.[b].[b.0.1) 5.d].e].1.2.[].2)]) 12 Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.2.[i. S).[c].3) 17.[i.[b.ir].[#. Postdotlist.3.1).1.[].il].[#.[].0.[b.3.3.Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.[B. Adding to chart: <23852> item(B. b. Adding to chart: <26897> item(B.2.2.[b.2) Adding to stack: <22863> item((i.c].ir].[b].1.c]. initialposition.0.1.3.[S].[].1. d}.[#. Example 18 (Trace of aabbccdd) L(G2 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}.(#.2) 11.4.2.1.3) 18.1. c.0.c].1.ir].[b.e].1) 9 Adding to chart: <10640> item(S.il].B.3) 16 Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.2.S.S.[i.[].1.Adding to chart: <27540> item(S. Adding to chart: <23851> item(B. finalposition) The stack operation is represented as follows: “il” is a push rule of the stack index “i” and “ir” is a pop rule.(i.1.c].2.0.[i.[B].S.[]. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 55 shows the recognition of the string aabbccdd with the grammar G2 transformed into a trGIG.1. i S→B B → bBc ¯ i B → bc ¯ i 1 Adding to chart: <10898> item(<start>.[i.[B].0.0.[].3). P.2.[#.2.B.5.

2.[b]. 6. S → bS j 3.[S].a].ir]. 3.2.[#.a]. 3] to S 4 Then the following are sequentially added to S 4 : a) [(#.[d.il]. b}∗ }. Adding to chart: <10625> item(S.[S.0.[#. 3).0.1)aabR[a][b]⇒(#.2.[S. This bookkeeping is performed here by the order parameter.0) S ⇒ (x.il].1). In the following example the square brackets represent substrings to be recognized.b]. In other words. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5. the following sequences can be generated using Earley’s Algorithm if no ordering constraint is enforced at the Completer Operation.[].8) yes The following example shows why some bookkeeping of the order of the derivation is required in Earley items.[B. S → bS • . 0).[c.0. 2.[c.2)aabR[b]⇒ i i j ¯ j ¯ i 1 2 3 4 5 (i. Adding to chart: <27654> item(B. 0).7) 26. 3] ∈ S 3 : ¯ j add [(#. R → a • . aaRa ⇒ (?. The pairs in parenthesis represent the nodes of the graph-structured stack: (#.3) aabR⇒(i. S → aS i 2.0.1. 3. Adding to chart: <27783> item(B.[]. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Adding to chart: <22956> item(B.0.3.b].2.il].S.0.3.2) aaR⇒ (i.b].0) S ⇒ (i.5) 22. S → • R.[B].e]. S → R • .4) 20.3. the completer operation may jump up two steps and complete the “R” introduced after step 3.0.S. Adding to chart: <10754> item(S.[#.[].6) 25.[c]. 0).ir].[#.a].1.ir].1) aS ⇒ (i. Consider the language Lww = {ww |w ∈ {a.[#.8) 28.5) 21.0)aaba[a][b] ¯ i 6 After recognized this substring.3) aabS ⇒(j . the following complete operation would be performed : Given [(#.[d].0. Adding to chart: <23085> item(B.[#. Adding to chart: <10982> item(<start>. Adding to chart: <23342> item(S. instead of the one introduced at step 5.?) aaba i i ¯ i ¯ j 1 2 3 4 However.[#.0.[].6) 24.il].56 19 CHAPTER 5.2) aaS ⇒(i.[#. Adding to chart: <10883> item(S.B.[#.[d. the corresponding productions of the grammar Gww repeated below and the string aaba 1. Adding to chart: <23215> item(S.a].[].ir].[d].3.7) 27.1. 3] ∈ S 4 and [(j.0. j .4. R → Rb | b ¯ j The following derivation is not possible (in particular step 4).2. (#.0.1) aS ⇒ (i.[c].1.0.2.[].6) 23. 2].[#.0.e].0.4.2) aaS ⇒ (j . S → R 4.

d}. b. 0] i 5. 0). j}. R → bd ¯ j 4. the complete operation of the previous algorithm does not specify the correct constraints. completed-stack ambiguity and stack-position ambiguity. S → aSc j 3. P ) where P is: 1. . S. R → • ∗ • b c. The predict-complete ambiguity In this case. 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. S → aS • .2. In other words. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM b) [(#.5. S → aS • . 2). R → bc ¯ i 6. R}. 2). complete steps have to check that there is a corresponding pop-move item that has been completed for every item produced at a reduced push move. {a. {i.2.3 Refining the Earley Algorithm for GIGs The Algorithm presented in the preceding section does not specify all the necessary constraints. 1. 0). at some predict steps. The exact prediction path that led to the current configuration has to be transversed back in the complete steps. Example 19 Gamb4 = ({S. i 57 c) [(#. 2]. #. R → [(#.2. It cannot handle cases of what we call predict-complete ambiguity. R → bRc ¯ i 5. S → aSd i 2. At this point. The ambiguity arises in the following configuration S ⇒ aabR which would lead to the following items: [(#. push push pop pop Figure 5. c. S → R 7. 4. 4. 2] and b d. there is no way to control the correct derivation given no information on the pop moves has been stored. 0. and at completer cases. 1].2: Push and Pop moves on the same spine The following grammar produces alternative derivations which illustrate this issue. This is depicted in the following figure 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

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

−1 j.10: Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes i The following operation operates on the reverse direction of the Path function. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 .−3 i. Path2 returns a set of nodes in I accessible from another node in I. .1 $.1 $. 2 j. −2 j. −2 i.3 i. −2 j. Path(∆ − 1 ): CHAPTER 5. −2 S S S S S Figure 5. named edgeC. −1 j.3 j.0 j.3 i. ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset S S i.0 i. −3 j. The portion of the graph that is already reduced corresponds to completed nodeswhich already matched their respective complements.1 j. Path2 performs them at complete time. Both Path and Path2 perform Dyck language reductions on the graph structured stack.−3 i. Path obtains the closest non reduced nodes ¯ ¯ in I. −3 i. and ∆ − 1 . ∆ + 2 ) add ∆ + 2 to valueset ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 . ∆ − 3 ∈ I. ∆ + 2 ∈ I 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edge((∆ − 1.3 j.1 j. Completed nodes are designated by a particular kind of edge. While Path performs them at predict time.2 i. The returned set of nodes represent points in the derivation at which to continue performing reductions at complete time.2 i.62 Algorithm 3 . 2 j.

A node ∆cl (or cl(∆)) is a pointer (cl(δ). Two parameters represent the portion of the stack: the current active node ∆Ac and the initial node ∆In . ∆2 ) add ∆2 to valueset ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 . Path2(∆ − 1 ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 .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. and positive. p < 0.1 j. p) (∆) in the stack. A → α • aβ. j] ∈ S i ¯ Nodes are represented by pairs of elements in I ∪ I ∪ {#}. but inherit the last generated node. The vocabulary corresponding to the set of indices (I). We say a node ∆+ is in I if it designates a pair (δ. 0). p) to the node (δ. -3 S S paths $.3 j. p) such that δ ∈ I. We use a substitution mapping cl from DI into DI ∪ {c}∗ . [∆Ac . ∆ − 1 ∈ I) and : ∆2 ∈ I ∪ {#} 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edgeC((∆ − 1. their ¯ ¯ complements (I) and the empty stack symbol (#). We refer to these as transmitted nodes. -3 Figure 5. p) such that δ ∈ DI and p is an integer.0 j. -2 j. We ¯ ¯ say a node ∆− is in I if it designates a pair (delta. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 4 . ∆In .3 j.1 j. . ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset c c S 63 $. negative integers and zero respectively. p) such that δ ∈ I.2. -2 j.0 j. defined as follows: cl(δ) = cδ for any δ ∈ DI ∆cl represents a node (cl(δ). The empty stack is then represented by the node (#. 2 j. -1 j. -1 j. We need also to represent those constituents that did not generate a node of their own ( a push or pop derivation). 2 j.e. will be denoted by DI (i.5. p > 0. DI = I ∪ I ∪ {#}). ∆ − 3 ∈ I.

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

Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string. Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#. p) such that −n ≤ p ≤ n. The operations predictor. (#. 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: (#. S → • S$. In the second case. 0). pop or e-move). p1 ) designates an item active node (∆Ac ) and I(δ 0 . S → S$ • . and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. This is also required for productions ¯ that check the top of the stack: (A → γ) when the triggering item Active node is in I. (#. p0 ) designates an item initial node. T. we represent nodes in the graph-structured stack with pairs (δ ± . Reject.b) where the active node is in I.5. 0). to retrieve the active nodes in I. the function path is used. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#. If i = n and Sn+1 = {[(#.. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 6 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) .2. #. In the pop case there are two subcases (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. [δ] .. scanner. δ ∈ DI and the absolute value of p (abs(p)) refers to the position in w = a1 . These subcases are constrained by the type of production applied (push.2.2. 0). 0). 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.a): ¯ the active node in the triggering item is in I or (1. P ) be a GIG. 0). S. Ac(δ 1 .an in which the index δ + in I was introduced. Let G = (N. I. n ≥ 0. 0). Prediction and Scanner Operations Prediction Operations will be divided in different subcases.

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

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

B → γ • . (δ 0 . p0 )) such that: ¯ δ 0 ∈ I ∪ I. p2 ). ). ( . j] ∈ S i δ 3 ∈ I. p0 ). p0 ). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS I_3 I−edge edge I_3 Ac_2 + Ac_2 + − − Figure 5.13: Completer A 3. A → α • Bβ. The existence of an edge between ∆In and ∆I0 is checked as in the previous cases. I(δ 0 . p3 ). I(δ 0 . There are two additional constraints. A → αB • β. p2 ).68 I_0: e−move CHAPTER 5.c also combines a triggering item generated by a push production. The first is −p2 < pI . p3 ). It should be noted that the string position in which an index in I is introduced constrains the possible orderings of the control . and (p2 > −1) : for edge((δ 3 . p2 ) such that δ 2 ∈ I and −n ≤ p2 < 0). δ 2 ∈ I ∪ {#}.e ∆Ac = (δ 2 . δ 0 . In other words the active node ∆Ac is a closing parenthesis of the Dyck language that has not yet exceeded its opening parenthesis.14: Completer B Subcase 3. ∆In ∈ I. k] to S i and such that I_0 − + I_0 I−edge + − I_3 + push edge + Ac_2 + Ac_2 + Figure 5. (p2 > −1) If [Ac(δ 2 . k] ∈ S j pushC( (δ 3 . In this case ¯ ¯ the active node ∆Ac is in I (i. p0 )) and for [ . add [Ac(δ 2 .b Completer B: Push with Active Node in I ∪ {#}. p3 ). I(δ 3 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

m.3. TAGs. 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. }. the similar grammar Gamb3 = ({S. 5. Unambiguous indexing should be understood as those grammars that produce for each string in the language a unique indexing derivation. most algorithms for CFGs. #. In practice. B.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. O(n3 ) holds for grammars with constant or unambiguous indexing. the real limiting factor in practice is the size of the grammar. However. the sources of increase in the time complexity are a) ambiguity between mode of operation in the stack ( . All average case results reported are empirical. . 4.3. 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. The size of the grammar designated by |G| corresponds to the number of rules and the number of non-terminals. and other grammar formalisms run much better than the worst case. O(n2 ) for unambiguous context free back-bone grammars with unambiguous indexing and O(n) for bounded-state8 context free back-bone grammars with unambiguous indexing. push. 8 Context Free grammars where the set of items in each state set is bounded by a constant. C}. {i. 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. In the analysis we present here. k ≥ 0. m + k = n} Therefore. {a. The expensive one is the first case. S. 7 and 8 would be bounded by the square of the number of b’s scanned so far. Usually. b. so the following results hold: O(n6 ) is the worst case. d}. 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]). There are no mathematical average case results.5. we keep separate the size of the context-free backbone and the indexing mechanism. c. or pop) through the same derivation CF path and b) a different index value used in the same type of stack operation. This will allow to compare what is the impact of the indexing mechanism as an independent multiplicative factor. The properties of Earley’s algorithm for CFGs remain unchanged.

There might be O(I · ∆In − 1) possible values for each edge and ∆In . j] to S i + 1 Predictor operations have in general the following shape. A → α • aβ. Predict. The computation of the path in Predictor takes at most O(n3 ) for each vertex. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [∆A . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Analysis of Scan. the complexity of the predictor operation is: O(|I|2 · |G| · n4 ). k are bounded by n. ∆I0 . ∆0 . ∆I0 . p1 ). ∆In . 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. j] ∈ S i : for every i-edge (∆In . ∆In .76 CHAPTER 5. A → α • Bβ. ∆In .2) and predictor 1. A → • γ. The push (1.3 operations take constant time regarding the input size. ∆3 . A → αa • β. 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 . i] to S i A grammar rule is added to the state set. Scanner If [∆A . p2 ). ∆I0 ) and item: for [ . Given there are two stack possible values (∆Ac and ∆In ). B → α • Aβ. C. We consider now the more simple cases of the Completer operation which have the following shape. p1 ). A → αB • β. Predictor Operations If [Ac(δ 1 . j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P : δ add every [(δ 2 . Complete The scanner operation requires constant time. and for each value there might be O(I · n) path values. B → γ • . Completer Case 1. k] to S i The complexity is bound by the number of elements in S j that satisfy the edge condition. The same grammar rule may have different values for δ. no recalculation of ∆Ac (No reduction involved) If [∆Ac . . It depends on k and p0 : O(|I| · |G| · n2 ). It checks the current word (input aj ) against the terminal a expected by the scanner. There is still the need to check for duplicates of the grammar rules. k] ∈ S j add [∆Ac .

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

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

t[. k. p. aj Figure 5.5.4... j.η] → t[. q. i t[η r ] → Θ • . i.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. and the number of possible nodes is bound by n. p. Storage of the graph-structured stack takes O(n3 ).. Given there are four parameter bound by n in each item.... i] is inserted in the set S j if and only if the following holds: 1. α ⇒ ai+1 . therefore it can be done in a n × n × n table. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM Type 4 Completor: 79 t[η] → • t[η r ]. i.. l b[η] → ∆ • . −. ai a i+1 .aj ∗ ∗ S γ A η α β a1 . l A note on Space Complexity The space complexity is determined by the storage of Earley items.ηη r ] 5. −. its space complexity is O(n4 ). Storing the combination of i-edges and edges involves three nodes. k t[η] → t[η r ] • .20: Earley CFG invariant . S ⇒ a1 . q. i. j...ai Aγ 2..

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

µπ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ ... specifies the properties for the different types of productions that generated the current item.21 depicts the properties of the invariant. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 2. p0 ≤ i + 1 and p1 ≤ j. specifies the properties of information of the graph-structured stack encoded in the item. y π A z ai a . specifies that the item has a transmitted node from the graph if the empty string was generated in the control language. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . else δ = ¯ ¯ ¯ c. a framework that allows high-level specification and analysis of parsing algorithms [75. This framework enables the analysis of relations between different parsing .5. d. The remaining conditions specify the properties of the string νz µy π relative to the control language C.4. Condition c. z. It will also help to understand the implementation of the algorithm we detail in the appendix. ν. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ 81 3. Condition d. δ = z iff δ ∈ I ∪ I. ∗ S ν a 1 . 76]. i+1 aj ν z µ yπ Figure 5. Condition a..aj ..21: GIG invariant We will use Parsing Schemata to prove this proposition. δ ∈ DI iff z µy π = epsilon. 5..4. y = y . α.α η β µ . which naturally embed the invariant properties of the Earley algorithm for CFGs. Condition b. Figure 5. #νz µy π Such that: a. π ∈ C and νz µy πρ ∈ C for some ρ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . ¯ b. # γ . specifies the constraints related to the position correlation with the strings in the generated language.. y ∈ I ∪ I iff z = z .2 Parsing Schemata We use Parsing Schemata. z. ∈ cl(δ ).

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

However there is an additional type of deduction step performed in this parsing schema. a different set of items. DCompF . DPath2 b . η kj η ik . and DPrPop2 have the following shape. Items in IC EGIG will participate in some restricted deduction steps. Prediction Push and Pop deduction Steps.5. η ij η jj ∧ η p Completers DCompB . and they introduce completion items η p in IC EarleyGIG . η kj Those deduction steps that compute the the Control language are DPath a . The parsing schema for GIGs corresponds to the algorithm 6 presented in section 5.3 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. and DCompG have the following shape. DPrPop1 . η kj η ij ∧ η p This kind of deduction step can be understood as shortform for two deduction steps.4. A Parsing system is correct if F(P) ∩ V(P) = C(P) 5. will be used to perform the corresponding deduction steps. Therefore IC EGIG . DPath b . 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. and this corresponds to the control language. will represent edges and paths in the graph.4. A parsing system (P) is complete if F(P) ∩ V(P) ⊇ C(P) (all correct final items are valid). DPath2 a .2. DPrPush . Predictor steps can be decomposed as: η ij η ij η jj ηp η ij ηp Completer Steps can be decomposed as: η ik . 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). η ik . and they introduce prediction items η p in IC EarleyGIG . Those items in IC EGIG .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

p0 ) cl(z µu π) = +/+/+/+/+ +/-. S. ¯ 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 . p3 ) Ac(y. If 1. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ ¯ 3. Completeness) .4. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . Result x µy π #νz µu π(x µ (y π #νz µu π(x µ y )π . then an item ξ = [Ac(y. This lemma is equivalent to the following claim in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5. For each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 · · · η k 1 ≤ i ≤ k. A → α • β. #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. i] is inserted in the Set S j . p2 ) +/+/+ –+ + – + -x=u ¯ cl(xµyπ ) = –: y=x ¯ +/.1: Conditions on the completer Deductions Lemma 8 (Second direction.2 and Proposition 6.5. I(z. −) #νzµuπ +:u Table 5. #ν 2. p1 ) I(z. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM cl(x)µ y π = Therefore the result is νzµuπ 93 The following table 5. It states that all the derivations in the grammar will have the corresponding item in the set of states. α.1 summarizes the conditions specified by the Completer Operations. p0 ). # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ.(x < y) +/ TARGET ITEM Ac1(u. . CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM I1(x. p1 ).

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

PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM η = [p. I(x. p1 ). # ⇒ δAγ . ζ ξ if δ = and xµyπ = η = [p. (δ. p2 ). π. j] is in S k and d(η) < d(η ) < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. #ν and A. p0 ). #ν . η . j] η η ξ if δ = ξ ∧ ηp and η p = [p. ζ ξ • Predict: ξ = [Ac(y. #ν δ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . η. η . γ . p2 ). p0 )] such that p = push or p = pop. #ν ⇒ αBβ. j] is in S k and d(η) = d(η ) − 1 < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1.5. p1 ). j] is in S k and d(η) < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. p1 ). I(z. ζ = [Ac(y. p3 ). η. B → γ • . j] in S j Let S. # ⇒ a1 · · · aj Bγ . ν zν yν µ } with π + 2λ + 2µ minimal. δ. B → γ • . (u. (z. p0 )] d(η) = d(ξ) − 1 = d(η p ) . p0 )] such that p = push or p = pop. µ such that S. p1 ). λ. p1 ). #ν and let δ. B → • γ. p3 ). ζ = [Ac(y. I(cl(z). #ν δ δ λ π ∗ α. η . A → α • Bβ. #ν ⇒ a1 · · · ai . B → γ • . p3 ). ζ if δ = ξ 95 and xµyπ = ζ = [Ac(u. p0 ). (u. I(z. (x. (z. (x. p3 ). (z. p3 ). p1 ). (y. Then η = [Ac(y. p0 ). I(x.4. η.

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

{an bn cn de n |n ≥ 1}. The goal corresponds to the final item in the Parsing Schema: F EGIG = {[(#. otherwise it is not. This grammar has a high degree of ambiguity. 3. w ∈ {a. n]}. {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1}. 0.5. • Grammar Gamb5b which generates aacdbbcd and aadcbbdc but does not generate aacdbbdd nor aacdbbdc (a variation of Gamb5 presented above). 0). • {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm |n ≥ 1}. b}+ } {an (bn cn )+ |n ≥ 1}. 0). b}+ } • Grammar Gamb4 which generates aabbcdcd but does not generate aabbcddc nor aabbdccd. IMPLEMENTATION 97 (c) If the trigger item was added to the chart. S → • S$. • The mix language {w|w ∈ {a. {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm in j n |n ≥ 1} • {an bn wwcn dn |n ≥ 1. In this implementation the control language was not represented by separate items but as side conditions on the inference rules. Tests on the following languages were performed: • {an bn cn |n ≥ 1}. The axioms correspond to the initial item in the Parsing Schema: DInit = { [(#. 0). b}∗ } • {w(cw)+ |w ∈ {a. (#. 0.5. 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. {ww|w ∈ {a. If a goal item is in the chart. b. and add these generated items to the agenda. which where performed by procedures which implemented the path function over the graph representation. S → S • . 0). 0]} and the encoding of the input string. the goal is proved (and the string recognized). generate all items that are new immediate consequences of the trigger item together with all items in the chart. The number of items generated for the Mix and the copy languages were as follows: . (#.

≈ 500 ≈ 2. ∗ ∗ rm rm ∗ . 5.aj β 2 β.000 Copy L. In the GIG case. [2]).000 ≈6. It is also more complex because GIL derivation requires leftmost derivation for the stack operations.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. 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.000 ≈ 9.. We will refer to the connections between Earley parsing and LR parsing to clarify this presentation.625 104.. This approach can be extended to a Generalized LR parsing approach. [2]).. the technique we present here converts an LR GIG into a deterministic LR-2PDA according to the definition presented in Chapter 2. if multiple values are allowed in the parsing table (cf.1 LR items and viable prefixes We assume the reader has knowledge of LR parsing techniques (cf. IN ). ≈ 100 ≈ 400 ≈ 700 ≈ 1. 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.800 5.100 ≈5. [41]. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS n4 1296 10. 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 .000 ≈ 16.6. 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.000 20. The similarities of Earley Parsing and LR parsing are made explicit in those transformations. We say a GIG item index pair [ δ. [80]).976 Mix L.736 50.98 Length 6 9/10 12 15/16 18 CHAPTER 5. Therefore the set of items has to encode the corresponding top-down prediction that affects the stack of indices.500 ≈ 2.100 MCopy L. ≈ 300 ≈ 1.. Both [75] and [3] describe transformations of Earley Parsing Schemata to LR Parsing Schemata.500 ≈2.000 ≈ 28. The sets that define the states in GIG LR parsing are composed by a pair of sets (IT. We use this notion of viable prefixes to describe the computation of the rm rm ∗ main stack in a LR-2PDA. 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.ai Aβ ⇒ δγ j a1 .

R}. Gwcw = ({S. Example 21 L(Gwcw ) = {wcw |w ∈ {a. S → aS i 2. S. b}∗ }. R → Ra ¯ i 5. R → [#] 4. ) = {B → • γ |B → γ is a production } (a NFA transition) In the GIG case the transitions should be as follows. However in Earley’s algorithm this computation is done in run-time while in LR parsing it is precompiled in the LR states. ) |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. P ) and P is: 1. For CFG parsing (cf. The following example uses a grammar for the language Lwcw to depict the construction of the set of items. Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to the closure of IT .[3]). {a. #. For the GIG algorithm the set of items and possible index values cannot be determined only by the Closure operation. then closure(IT ) is the set of items constructed from IT by the two rules: 1. if the index operation is for instance ¯: ι δ(A → α • Bβ. b}. the goto function and the parsing table. They are also determined by the Goto operation. j}. If IT is a set of items for a grammar G. every item in IT is added to closure(IT ). Such productions are considered in case 2 of the Goto function.6. ¯ Note that the two conditions of the Closure operation rule out the possible index operations δ and [δ] when the right-hand side of the production starts with a non-terminal. {i. If A → α • Bβ is in closure(IT ) and (i) B → γ is a production where δ is in I ∪ { }.6.2 The Closure Operation. 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. . Initially.5. The Closure operation is equivalent to the Predict function in Earley parsing (cf.The transitions of this NFA are of the following form: δ(A → α • Bβ. ι) = {(B → • γ. S → bS j 3. LR PARSING FOR GILS 99 5. 2. S → cR 6. [41]) the Closure operation is equivalent to obtaining the set of states of a NFA that recognizes the viable prefixes. R → Rb ¯ j The set of states for the grammar Gwcw should encode the possible configurations of the stack of indices as follows: .

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.IN 2 ) where either 1 or 2 applies: . then goto(I. 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. The set I6 requires that the stack be empty. X. the Goto function in the GIG case is a PDA and the set of viable prefixes with associated indices is a context-free language. if I is the set of items that are valid for some viable prefix-index pairs (γ. j. Intuitively. IN ) is defined to be the pair (IT 2 . X. where IT is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol. 5. j.ιj ) in other words. 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. We will describe the Goto function adding the possibility of computing the possible stack values of the PDA for each state. The CF Goto function is a DFA transition function where IT is in the state set and X is in the vocabulary. #} # # S → c•R R → • Ra R → • Rb ¯ j ¯ i S → • aS S → • bS j S → • aS S → • bS j S → • bS j S → • cR I7 : I 11 : # # S → aS • j S → • cR I8 : I 12 : # # S → bS • j S → • cR I9 : I 13 : # # S → cR • j R→ • [#] R → R•a ¯ i R → R• b ¯ j R → Ra • ¯ i R → Rb • ¯ j Figure 5. #} {i. j.ι). is defined to be the closure of the set of all items [A → αX • β] such that [A → α • Xβ] is in IT . if µ µ I is the set of items that are valid for some viable prefix γ. s) where i is an index symbol and s is a state defined by a set of items closure. In the GIG case.23: Set of States for Gwcw In the same way that the dot implies that some input symbols have been consumed. is the set of items that are valid of the viable prefix-index pairs (γX.6.100 I0 : # S → •S S → • aS i CHAPTER 5. X) is the set of items that are valid for the viable prefix γX. ιj ). We will say an index i is in IN if (i. #} {i. s) is in IN .3 The Goto Operation. ι) = (I j . then goto(I. The operation goto(IT. X). The CF function goto(IT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

wn ∈ C}.. wn >. >⇒< a1 ..1. G = (N.. (we follow Gazdar’s notation: the leftmost element within the brackets corresponds to the top of the stack).108 CHAPTER 6. Those control strings are encoded in the derivation of each spine as depicted in figure 6. w1 > . S. Gazdar suggests that the configuration in figure 6.] B ∗ ∗ A B pop push C A [] B [. C): {w | S. and every possible spine is independent.3. the control of the derivation can be distributed over different paths. [87]). L. 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). as is depicted in the figure 6.1 at the left. w1 . In other words... < an .1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs Every LIL can be characterized by a language L(G. ai ∈ T ∪ { }. . T.1. # ⇒ w. B [.. the language {wwR |w ∈ Σ∗ }) only of the nested (center embedded) sort.i] C [] push pop Figure 6. C).1: LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation 6.2 The palindrome language CFGs generate structural descriptions for palindrome languages (e..an | < S.. Those control words describe the properties of a path (a spine) in the tree generated by the grammar G.g. #δ and w is in T ∗ . We gave an alternative definition of the language of a GIG in chapter 5 to be the control language: L(G. It is easy to see that no control substring obtained in a derivation subtree is necessarily in the control language. In other words. the control strings wi are not necessarily connected to each other.2 and 6.. but every substring encoded in a spine has to belong to the control set language. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6. CFGs cannot generate the structural descriptions depicted in figures 6. however those paths are connected transversely by the leftmost derivation order. and C is a control set defined by a CFG (a Dyck language): {a1 . where G is a labeled grammar (cf. P ).1 at the right.2 would be necessary to represent Scandinavian .

The corresponding structural description is shown in figure 6.3: Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR However GIGs generate a similar structural description as depicted in figure 6. j}.b.b. {i.a] [c. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 109 [. In such structure the dependencies are introduced in the leftmost derivation order. (i. the structure of figure 6.4: Example 22 (Comparative Construction) . N P.a] [a] [. AP. Such an structure can be obtained using a GIG (and of course an LIG).6.] [a] [b.b.b.b.a] [c.] Figure 6. But the exact mirror image of that structure.b.a] [c.a] [b. (i. ¯ Gadj = ({AP. in productions that are not in Greibach Normal Form).. b.c. #. A.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b. 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 .a] [c.. The English adjective constructions that Gazdar uses to motivate the LIG derivation are generated by the following GIG grammar.2: A non context-free structural description for the language wwR unbounded dependencies. {a.] a b c d d c b a Figure 6.e.c.a] [a] [..1.. [.4 at the left. A}.a] [d.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] [b. c}.e.a] [d.

..c.6 at the left. The arrows show the leftmost derivation order that is required by the operations on the stack.c] [c..d] [c.c..d] [c.. 6.a] [a.d] [d] [.5: Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language Gazdar further argues that the following tree structure.b.a] c A A [a.a] [.] a b c d a b c d [b. the introduction of indices is dependent on the presence of lexical information and its transmission is not carried through a top-down spine.5). However. as in the LIG case.a] [a] [b.c.b.. could . but not the one at the right.b. [.4: GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR It should be noted that the operations on indices are reversed as compared to the LIG case shown in figure 6.a] c d d a [b.a] [c.] A NP b [c] [a] [b.] AP AP AP [. The structural description at the left can be generated by a GIG.b.b.a] [c.3 The Copy Language Gazdar presents the following two possible LIG structural descriptions for the copy language (depicted in figure 6.a] [a] [.] A [b.d] a [b.1.d] b [d] c d Figure 6.] NP AP [.] [..] [b...] a A a b [.c.b.c] a b A c [c] b Figure 6. a similar one can be obtained using the same strategy as we used with the comparative construction.b.a] [d.c.] NP NP c NP [..3.a] [b.c] NP [d.] [a] a b c d [c.110 CHAPTER 6.b. On the other hand. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [. shown in figure 6.

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

11.i] b [. #. [.9: A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies GIGs can also produce other structures that cannot be produced by a LIG. {i}. c.10 (at the right).. b.] [. as we show in figures 6. d..i] d [i] b c d a a [i] b b [. P ) where P is: .. R. {a. f }.i] [i] d [..8 and the somehow equivalent in 6.10 and 6.9 (right).i] [i.] c c b [i.1. L}.] [i] a a [i. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6. GIGs can generate the same structures as in 6. The relevant structures that can be produced by a LIG are depicted in figures 6.i] [i] c c d [.] b Figure 6.9 (left).] [i.] d [.112 CHAPTER 6. L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}.8 and 6. S. Gsum = ({S.] [i] [. e. Example 23 (Dependent branches) .] c [i] [i... F..] c c Figure 6..8: LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies [. The corresponding structure is depicted in the figure 6. It is mentioned in [82] in relation to the definition of composition in [79] Categorial Grammars. which permits composition of functions with unbounded number of arguments and generates tree sets with dependent paths.] [i...i] d [i] b b [. The following language cannot be generated by LIGs.4 Multiple dependencies Gazdar does not discuss of the applicability of multiple dependency structures in [29].

] d d ε b Figure 6.6.] [i] a f [i.i] [i] a [i. .i] [i.11: GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies 6..] [....] [i. GIGs can produce crossing dependencies with some alternative structures as depicted in the following structures.] c [i] a [i.10: GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies [...i] a c c [.i] [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 [.1.i] [i.5 Crossing dependencies Crossing dependencies in LIGs and TAGs have the same structural description as the copy language.] [.1.] [i] a [.i] f [.i] b [i] [i] c [. The first example is generated by the grammars Gcr presented in Chapter 3 and repeated here..i] a [i] [i] [i.i] a b b c [i] [.] c [i.] d [i] a c d b d e Figure 6.

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

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

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

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

They are however generated by GIGs as shown in figure 6.16 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] b [i.] [i] [i. The problem is that they require the two directions of recursion (i.] c c d CHAPTER 6.i] d [i] b b [. However.15: LIGs not in push-GNF II These languages do not seem to be obtainable with a LIG in push-GNF. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [..] c c d d b Figure 6..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. this alternative . both right and left) for push productions..e.i] [i] [.118 [.

[39]) to allow to push/pop several symbols from the stack. There has been some work compiling HPSGs into TAGs (cf. different derivations .3 GIGs and HPSGs We showed in the last section how GIGs can produce structural descriptions similar to those of LIGs.16: LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs should be considered in detail.3. One of the motivations was the potential to improve the processing efficiency of HPSG. Also the symbols will be interpreted relative to the elements in the top of the stack (as a Dyck set). Therefore. and others which are beyond the descriptive power of LIGs and TAGs. We will allow the productions of a GIG to be annotated with finite strings in I ∪ I instead of single symbols. 6. It is a standard change in PDAs (cf. Such compilation process allowed the identification of significant parts of HPSG grammars that were mildly context-sensitive. [48].2 were correlated to the use of the SLASH feature in GPSGs and HPSGs. 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. [8]).6. by performing HPSG derivations at compile time. In this section. Those structural descriptions corresponding to figure 6. This does not change the power of the formalism. This follows from the ability of GIGs to capture dependencies through different paths in the derivation. 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. We will introduce informally some slight modifications to the operations on the stacks performed ¯ by a GIG.

HEAD 1 SUBJ < > H SUBJ 2 1 HEAD SUBJ < 2 > Figure 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS might be produced using the same production.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). 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. an how the elements contained in the stack can be correlated to constituents or lexical items (terminal symbols) in a constituent recognition process.17: Head-Subject Schema 2 2 33 HEAD 1 6 77 6 6 6 77 6 6 77 6 S 6 L | C 6SUBJ 6 77 6 6 4 55 6 4 6 3 6 COMPS 6 2 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 HEAD DTR 6 S | L | 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 6D 6 6 6 6 6 6 6   4 4 COMP-DTR S 2 2 3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 2 3337 7 HEAD 1 77 7 6  7777 6 77 6 7777 6SUBJ 2 7777 6 7777 4 5577 77 COMPS 3 77 77 55 (1) Figure 6. Example 27 (intransitive verb) XP → Y P XP XP → X YP →Y X→x nv ¯ Y →y n .17 depicts the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Subject Schema in HPSG [61]. obtaining very similar structural descriptions. according to what is on the top of the stack. Head-Subj-Schema Figure 6.120 CHAPTER 6. 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. This is exemplified with the productions X → x and X → x. The arrows indicate how the transmission of features is encoded in the leftmost derivation order.

3. 3 n > Figure 6.6.] Y [n.] X x 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 . GIGS AND HPSGS [.21. corresponding to the deriva- . The following GIG productions generate the structural description corresponding to figure 6..] XP [v.19: Head-Comps Schema tree representation Figure 6...20.] XP [v.] 121 YP [n.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 → 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.. 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.] y [v.

∗ . 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. We show the contents of the stack when each lexical item is introduced in the derivation.22 shows how coordination combined with SLASH can be encoded by a GIG.122 [n] CHAPTER 6.20: Head-Comp in GIG format tion given in example 29. Example 29 (SLASH in GIG format) . APPLICABILITY OF GIGS XP [ v ] X [n v] [n v] CP [ v ] Y [v] CP x y ε Figure 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1987. Steedman. 1997. Stanford. 104(2):235–261. 32 No. On the concatenation of one-turn pushdowns. [80] M. Computational linguistics. In COLING-ACL. 1997. de la Clergerie and M. 1992. Introduction to the Theory of Computation. K. pages 11–14. A. Derivational minimalism. 13:31–46. pages 259–269. pages 1333–1339. A tabular interpretation of a class of 2-stack automata. Grenoble. J. P. 1988. A. 1976. Stabler. PWS Publishing Company. 1970. pages 104–111. Dependency and coordination in the grammar of dutch and english. Walters. 2:188–200. [88] D. Characterizing structural descriptions produced by various grammatical formalisms. [87] D. Language. Grammars. Wartena. [79] M. Massachusetts. 1999. University of Pennsylvania.136 BIBLIOGRAPHY [77] M. Sipser. D. In Proc. Weir. and A. In Proceedings of the Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics (LACL ’98). An efficiente augmented-context-free parsing algorithm. pages 523–568. A geometric hierarchy beyond context-free languages. CA. Vijay-Shanker. [81] E. Turn-bounded grammars and their relation to ultralinear languages. J. of the 25th ACL. Characterizing mildly context-sensitive grammar formalisms. [83] D. 1987. Information and Control. Grammars with composite storages. Pardo. Deterministic context-sensitive languages: Part II. [84] C. Weir. 1998. Information and Control. [82] K. [85] Ch. 1985. A. Wartena. 1328. Weir. [86] D. 1998. V. Tomita. 17:41–61. Lecture notes in computer science. Boston. PhD thesis. Joshi. [78] E. Workman. . Theoretical Computer Science.