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

A Dissertation

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

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

by Jos´ M. Casta˜o e n February, 2004

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Adam Jaﬀe, Dean of Arts and Sciences

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

5 Derivation order and Normal Form . . . . . . 7 Conclusions and Future Work 125 7. . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . .4 Proof of the Correctness of the Algorithm . . . .1. . . .4. . .3 Parsing Schemata for GIGs . . . . . . . . . 48 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. . . . . . . . . . .1 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: ﬁnal version . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 . . .2 Set Inclusion between GIGs and LIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . .1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 LR items and viable preﬁxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 . 5. . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . .5 Crossing dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 51 . . . . .6 LR parsing for GILs . . . . . . . 5. . . . . .1 Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Global Index Grammars (GIGs) 6. . . . . . . . .2 Time and Space Complexity . . 6. . . 5. . . . . . 107 107 108 108 110 112 113 115 116 119 6 Applicability of GIGs 6. 98 . . . . . . . . .2.5 Implementation . . . . . 75 . . . . . . .2 Parsing Schemata . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . 79 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . 81 . . .1 Earley Algorithm. . . . . . 5. .1 LIGs in push-Greibach Normal Form . . . . . . . .3 The Goto Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . .2. . . . . . . . .3 Complexity Analysis . 5. . . . . . .3 The Copy Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . . . . .1. .1 Control Languages . 51 . . . 6.3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs . . . . 83 . 6. 61 . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . .3 GIGs and HPSGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . 5. . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. .4 Multiple dependencies . . 5. 6. . 5. . . . . . . . . . . 52 . . . . . . . 5.2 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm . . 80 . . . .1 Graph-structured Stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for 5. . .2 The Closure Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 The palindrome language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . .3. . . . . .1 Overview . . . . . . . GILs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 xiv .

. . . . . . . . last case . . . . . 60 Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . .15 5. . . . . 58 i Push and Pop moves on diﬀerent spines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 GIG invariant . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Completer E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 6. . . . A non context-free structural description for the language wwR . 58 A predict time graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation . 108 109 109 110 110 xv . . . . . . . . . .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . 8 11 15 15 17 17 18 Two graph-structured stacks . . . . Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. . . . . . . . . . .4 6. . 68 Completer B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 5.21 5. . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) A Turing Machine . . . . . . . . . . .19 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 5. . . annotated with indices for the grammar Gwcw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6.1 5. .9 5. . .13 5. .16 5. . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . 62 i A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Ambiguity on diﬀerent spines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . 100 Transition diagram for the PDA recognizing the set of valid preﬁxes. . . . . . . . . . . 57 A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . 72 Completer G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Two alternative graph-structured stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 5.5 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5. . . . . . . . .12 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 A complete steps in the graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 i I-edges . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Completer F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Push and Pop moves on the same spine . . . . 81 Path invariant . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A PDA . . . . . . . . . . . .18 5. . . . . . . . 73 Earley CFG invariant . . . . . . . . 64 Completer A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Two alternative graph-structured stacks distinguished by position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 5. . . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 1. . Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Language relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . 68 Completer C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . . sLR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Set of States for Gwcw . . . . . . . . . . 69 Completer D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .17 6. . . . . . . second case . . . . . .20 6. . . . . 111 111 112 112 113 113 117 117 118 118 119 120 121 121 122 123 124 xvi . . . . . . . . . .22 An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language . . . . . . . . A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language . . . . . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs . . . . .19 6. . . . . . . .18 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 6. . . . . . . .6 6. . . . . . . . SLASH and coordination in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLASH in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . .10 6.6. . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 6. . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II . . . . .11 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .7 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 6. . . . . . Head-Subject Schema . . LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Comp in GIG format . . . Head-Subject in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 6. . . . . . . . . . . . LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6. . . . . . Head-Comps Schema tree representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

29]. We will focus in natural language problems from a language theoretic point of view.1. They form hierarchies of levels of languages. These constructions are exempliﬁed as [26]:2 – reduplication. and multi-push-down grammars [21]. The complexity of the recognition problem is dependent on the language level. Georgian Case and Chinese numbers) might be considered 3 However to be beyond certain mildly context-sensitive formalisms. corresponding to languages of the form {an bn cn | n ≥ 1}.3 It has been claimed that a NL model must have the following properties:4 1 See 2 The for example [73. In general. leading to languages of the form {ww |w ∈ Σ∗ } – multiple agreements. 4 See for example. 1. Weir’s [87]. that can be modeled with GILs. [46. 47] on semi-linearity. or additional stacks can be added. 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. where a language of level k properly includes a language of level k − 1. in particular related to the so called Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms.g. additional levels of embeddedness. INTRODUCTION Such models can be generalized and additional control levels. Within Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms we focus on Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) which are weakly equivalent. among others. – crossed agreements. etc. As a consequence those generalizations provide more expressive power but at a computational cost. Examples of those related hierarchies are: Khabbaz’s [49]. 23. there is increasing consensus1 on the necessity of formalisms more powerful than CFGs to account certain typical natural languages constructions. 86] and [55. following type of languages are also relevant to model molecular biology phenomena [70] there are other phenomena (e. multiple context free grammars [71]. . scrambling.1 Natural Language Regarding natural languages (one of the seven cases mentioned above). {an bn cn dn | n ≥ 1}.2 CHAPTER 1. We will exemplify this issue with some properties of natural language and we will consider some biology phenomena. 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. and in the machine model allowing another level of embeddedness in the stack.1. Their expressive power regarding multiple agreements is limited to 4 counting dependencies (e. head grammars (HGs). The equivalent machine model is a nested or embedded push down automata (NPDA or EPDA).1... L = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1}). Tree Adjoining languages belong to the class L2 in Weir’s hierarchy.g. its descriptive power. and combinatory categorial grammars (CCGs) which are weakly equivalent. 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). One of the characteristics of mildly context sensitive formalisms is that they can be described by a geometric hierarchy of language classes. where a CFG controls another CFG.a2 k +1 | n ≥ 0} and {w2 k −1 +1 |w ∈ Σ∗ } . More expressive power can be gained in a mildly context-sensitive model by increasing the progression of this mechanism: in the grammar model adding another level of grammar control. These formalisms have long been used to account for natural language phenomena. They have been proven to have recognition algorithms with time complexity O(n6 ) considering the size of the grammar a constant factor ( [67.a2 k | n ≥ 0} and {w2 k −1 |w ∈ Σ∗ } but does not contain the languages n n {a1 . an increase in descriptive power is correlated with an increase in time and space parsing complexity... A TAG/LIG is a level-2 control grammar. This is reﬂected in the pumping lemma. and the time and space complexity of the recognition problem. 62]). In such hierarchies there is a correlation between the complexity of the formalism (grammar or automata). INTRODUCTION – Constant growth property (or semi-linearity. tree adjoining grammars (TAGs). Therefore the following relations follow: The family of level-k languages contains the languages n n {a1 . Many diﬀerent proposals for extending the power of LIGs/TAGs have been presented in the recent past. However.

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

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

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

Most of the properties of GILs shown in these chapters are proved using straightforward extensions of CFL proofs. such as a non-deterministic Generalized LR parsing. intersection with regular languages. We evaluated the impact of the size of the grammar and the indexing mechanism separately. free morphisms and inverse morphisms. We also show that GILs are closed under substitution by e-free CFLs. for example. Combinatory Categorial Grammars.1. O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ).2. OUTLINE OF THE THESIS AND DESCRIPTION OF THE RESULTS 7 six operations: union. shows that the size of the grammar has the same impact as in the CFG case. However it is O(n) for LR or state bound grammars and is O(n3 ) for constant indexing grammars which include a large set of ambiguous indexing grammars. e-free regular sets. catenation. 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. e-free homomorphism. We also give an LR parsing algorithm for for deterministic GILs. We show by construction using GIGs that GILs are closed under union. for higher level programming languages or deterministic approaches for shallow parsing in natural language. The time complexity of the algorithm is O(n6 ). This is due to the fact that GILs inherit most of CFL properties. 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. Tree Adjoining Grammars and Head Grammars are weakly . The graph-structured stack enables the computations of a Dyck language over the set of indices and their complements. but the indexing mechanism could have a higher impact. The space complexity is O(n4 ). Deterministic LR parsing techniques are relevant. We also show that GILs are closed under intersection with regular languages and inverse homomorphism (proved by construction with LR-2PDAs). The result. Natural Language Modeling (Chapter 6) We present a comparison of LIGs and GIGs (some of these results were presented in [20]). concatenation and Kleene star. LIGs. Kleene star. They are also the basis for non-deterministic approaches. We also prove that GILs are semi-linear.

LCFRLs LILs CFLs ww anbncn ww + an(bncn ) + GILs Figure 1.2. The question still to be answered is whether the area with lines in the LILs and LCFR languages set is empty or not. We also show that GIGs can generate trees with dependent paths.8 CHAPTER 1. Other formalisms that might share structural similarities with GIGs could be Minimalist Grammars and Categorial Grammars. so the descriptive power of CFGs regarding by natural language phenomena is inherited by GIGs. LILs/TALs. We discuss the relationship of LIGs with GILs in depth in section 6. GILs include CFLs by deﬁnition. Those natural language phenomena that require an extra power beyond CFLs can be dealt with GILs with much more ﬂexibility than with LILs/TALs. The set inclusion relation between CFLs.1: Language relations . Our conjecture is that it is. There is a long and fruitful tradition that has used those formalisms for Natural Language modeling and processing. we disscuss how some properties of HPSGs can be modeled with GIGs (presented in [19]. and GILs can be represented as in ﬁgure 1. Finally.1. INTRODUCTION equivalent.

84. 2 E. 83. 21.. Restricted classes of PDA with two stacks (2-PDA) were proposed as equivalent to a second order EPDA1 . We need to guarantee that the proposed automaton model does not have the power of a Turing Machine. or multi-store PDAs as equivalent to n-order EPDA.. also generalized models of multistacks (e.Chapter 2 Two Stack Push Down Automata 2. Consequently it is possible to simulate the capacity that a TM 1 See [7. but behaves like a PDA. 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.g. 9 . in the sense that it is forced to consume the input from left to right and has a limited capacity to go back from right to left. and n-Stack PDA. 81.2 It is well known that an unrestricted 2-PDA is equivalent to a Turing Machine (cf. 85].[31. (e. 9]. 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.g. 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. 59] [21.[7.1 Automata with two Stacks Diﬀerent models of 2-Stack Push Down Automata have been proposed.g.. [41]). 84]).

.. stn ) where sb1 . .3 we deﬁne the LR-2PDA.10 CHAPTER 2.1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines An EPDA. it is not possible to write into the auxiliary stack.. However transitions that push a symbol into the second auxiliary stack do not allow moves. In 2. 13]).st1 . Then a transition function looks like (from [45]): δ (input symbol.. Consequently this would produce a more restricted set of languages.3. the input might be initially stored in the second stack (e. . st2 . PDAs. [83. . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA has to move from left to right and from right to left. TAGs). is similar to a PDA. and the LR-2-PDA is presented in section 2.. Consequently it is possible to “use” the information stored in the auxiliary stack only once.1.. Moving back to the left. a 2nd order PDA in the progression hierarchy presented in [86]. stack symbol)= (new state. Alternatively. sb2 . either reading or replacing symbols. 2. In the next two subsections we review some models that proposed 2-stack or nested stack automata. sbm . 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)... because once the input is consumed.. In order to simulate these movements in a 2-PDA.. current state.g.. The number of stacks is speciﬁed in each move.. sb1 . Its expressive power is beyond PDA (context free grammars) and possibly beyond EPDA (e. except that the push-down store may be a sequence of stacks. push/pop on current stack...g. the input must be consumed and it must be possible to transfer symbols from one stack to the other. stn are stacks introduced above the current stack. and st1 . st2 . sb2 . sbm are a ﬁnite number of stacks introduced below the current stack. M’. It is initiated as a PDA but may create new stacks above and below the current stack. . “erases” the symbols as they are removed from the stack.3 These constraints force a left to right operation mode on the input in the LR-2PDA. Given that it is not possible to re-store them again in the auxiliary stack. 3 We might restrict even more the operation of the auxiliary stack disallowing moves that pop symbols from the auxiliary Stack. . A more detailed comparison of TMs. they cannot be recovered (unless some more input is consumed).

59].1.2. 81.1: Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) 2 Stack automata (2-SA) were shown to be equivalent to EPDA [7. 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. so as to separate diﬀerent sub-stacks. they use the additional stack in the same way as the embedded stacks are used in the EPDA. The possible moves for a 2-SA automaton are the following [7]: • Read a symbol from the input tape . to recognize crossed dependencies as in the example depicted in the next ﬁgure: Figure 2. for instance. They also require the use of a symbol for the bottom of the stack. Symbols written in the second stack can be accessed only after the preceding stack is empty. It allows the NPDA.

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

• F ⊆ Q is the set of ﬁnal (or accepting) states.2.e. The current state. • ⊥ ∈ Γ \ Σ is the bottom marker of pushdown store. 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. only if they are equivalent to a PDA transition function. 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. and the requirement that every move must be weight reducing [57]. The restriction is implemented using a weight function over the automaton conﬁguration. i. We use a standard notation similar to the one used in [77] or [41]. v) ∈ (δ. b) then φ(puv) < φ(qab). Part b) enables transitions that aﬀect the auxiliary stack if and only if an input symbol is consumed (i. the next symbol read and the top symbols of the stacks determine the next move of a LR-2PDA. b ∈ Γ if (p. if it is not ).e. u. Either of these symbols may be . 2. causing the machine to move without reading a symbol from the input or from the stacks. Part a) in the deﬁnition of the transition function is equivalent to a PDA. otherwise it is equivalent to a TM.2.2 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. LEFT RESTRICTED 2 STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATAS (LR-2PDAS) • Σ is the ﬁnite input alphabet. Part c) is a relaxation of the previous one and enables .. 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. 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. • Γ is the ﬁnite tape alphabet with Γ • q 0 ∈ Q is the initial state. a.

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

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

but it can store again in the second stack (the second copy). a. u) = (q 3 . the second storage can be written to only when consuming input. . given the constraints imposed on LR-2PDAs. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA A LR-2PDA: The input can be transversed only once. The crucial fact is that transitions type c.16 CHAPTER 2. While recognizing the second copy all the information stored about the ﬁrst copy is lost. 1. ) = (q 1 . (q 2 . In order to avoid the possibility of transferring symbols from one stack to the other indeﬁnitely. ) (transfer symbols from auxiliary to main stack) 3. . but unlike a TM. from left to right. then the possibility of storing information from the input seen at this move is lost. a) (store the symbols of the ﬁrst copy) 2.4. 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. a) = (q 2 . (above) . (q 3 . Consider the following transitions (where a is a symbol in Σ). a. There are two work- spaces which also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. (q 1 . consequently what is being read cannot be stored in the main or the auxiliary stack if there is a transferral occurring. 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∗ }. 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). au) (recognize the second copy using the symbols stored in the main stack. if information from the ﬁrst ordered stack is transferred to the second auxiliary stack. a. . . whatever remains at the right is forgotten). 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. However. an LR-PDA can recognize the language L3 = {www | w ∈ Σ∗ }. This exempliﬁes how many times (and the directions in which) the same substring can be transversed. a LR-2PDA is not able to transverse a substring indeﬁnitely. Transfer from one stack to the other is restricted. . a. The corresponding machine is detailed below in the exsection 2.

d. ⊥. Moves to the left erasing. Transfer possible Dependent writing from 1. Examples 2 and 3 are LR-2PDAs. EXAMPLES OF LR-2PDAS Reads left to right only. Writes left to right or same cell Transfer NOT possible Dependent writing from 1. Example 1 (Multiple Agreements) . δ. Independent moving. e}. Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing.5: sLR-2PDA 2. Writes left to right or same cell Independent both operations. b. c. Independent both operations. q 2 . {a. q 1 .4. Moves to the left erasing. Figure 2. q 3 }. {x}.4: LR-2PDA are not allowed. w ∈ Σ∗ and |w| ≤ |u|} is recognized by a sLR-2PDA. However the language L = {wuw | u. q 3 ) where δ: . Reads left to right only. M 5 = ({q 0 . 17 Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing.4 Examples of LR-2PDAs The ﬁrst example is a sLR-2PDA. q 0 . Dependent moving (erasing) Figure 2.2.

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

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

⊥) = {(q 3 . The corresponding deﬁnition of a deterministic LR-2PDA is as follows: 2. I) is nonempty. δ. xx)} 3. δ(q 1 . l ≥ 1} n m l n m l 9. I ∈ Γ. xy. z) = {(q 1 . Deterministic GILs are recognized in linear time as we mentioned in the introduction. )} 11. yx)} 4. for each q ∈ Q. z) = {(q 1 .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. . z⊥. ⊥) = {(q 3 . yy)} 12. . δ(q 3 . z. 2]. y) = {(q 1 . x) = {(q 1 . δ(q 1 . ⊥. A. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA Example 3 (Crossed dependencies) M cr3 = ({q 0 . z. c. . q 3 }. ⊥. ⊥. A. q 0 . I) contain more than one element. e. ⊥) = {(q 3 . e. ⊥) = {(q 1 . x) = {(q 1 . y) = {(q 1 . ⊥. ⊥. x⊥)} 2. ⊥. . {x. yz. δ(q 2 . c. 2. . y) = {(q 1 . yy. ⊥. δ(q 2 . Z. )} 8. . b. zz)} 7. then δ(q. ) is nonempty.20 CHAPTER 2. Z. Z. ⊥)} 15. δ(q 3 . ⊥. δ(q 2 . ⊥. )} L(M cr3 = {a b c d e f | n. f. y. )} 10. ⊥) = {(q 3 . z. δ(q 0 . y) = {(q 1 . I ∈ Γ. {a. b. a. ⊥. . a. . ⊥)} 14. q 1 . I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. q 2 . then δ(q. δ(q 2 . ⊥)} 5. A ∈ Σ and Z. d. a. ⊥. ⊥. ⊥. d. . ⊥)} 2. z}. b. a. for each q ∈ Q and Z. δ(q 1 . m. y. zy)} 6. y. δ(q 2 . and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q. c. . whenever δ(q. δ(q 1 . q 3 ) where δ: 1. I ∈ Γ. x. Z. x) = {(q 1 . . Therefore understanding the deterministic LR-2PDA is crucial for obtaining a deterministic LR parser for GILs deﬁned in chapter 6. f }.1 Deterministic LR-2PDA Deﬁnition 4 A LR-2PDA is deterministic iﬀ: 1. δ(q 1 . δ(q 3 . for no q ∈ Q. d. ⊥. )} 13.5. z) = {(q 2 . zz. x. I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ. δ(q 1 . y. whenever δ(q. Z. 3. Z.

i) 3. I) contain two elements = (q i . If the non-determinism is in the CFG backbone only we can guarantee that the recognition problem is in O(n3 ). I ∈ Γ. the ﬁrst case is not compatible with the third. Z. a. a. I) is nonempty. j) 4. and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q. The construction of the LR(k) parsing tables would show whether the indexing mechanism for a given GIG is non-deterministic. (q. a. We can regard to be an abbreviation for all the possible symbols in the top of the stack. . . 1. then δ(q. a. . . or is a deterministic indexing LR-2PDA if and only if: 1. A. i) = (q. A. 3. I ∈ Γ. Deﬁnition 5 A LR-2PDA has a deterministic indexing. Z i . then δ(q. because they imply a non-deterministic choice. ) is nonempty. . 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. nor with the fourth. j) 2. a. ) = (q. . I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ. Z. Z.2. DETERMINISM IN LR-2PDA 21 Condition 1 prevents the possibility of a choice between a move independent of the input symbol ( -move) and one involving an input symbol. Z j . Z. Condition 2 prevents the choice of move for any equal 4-tuple. (q. I ∈ Γ. (q. ) = (q. whenever δ(q. for each q ∈ Q.5. Z. for each q ∈ Q and Z.2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack Even if a GIG grammar is non-deterministic. . 2.5. I j ) such that I i = I j . for no q ∈ 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. A ∈ Σ and Z. b. I i ) and (q j . ) 2. Z. whenever δ(q. j) = (q. in the following examples of transitions. I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. (q. . Therefore.

22 CHAPTER 2. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It can be seen that all the derivations allow only equal number of a s. First direction: L(Gmix ) is in Lmix = {w|w ∈ {a. We need to prove that ut1 wt2 y t3 z is in L(GMIX ) ( |uti wti y ti z| = n + 3). 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). 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. n ≥ 0. we reach the following point: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . Second direction: Lmix is in L(Gmix ) Basis n = 0. Where ¯ ¯ t1 t2 t3 is any string of length three in Lmix and t designates the terminals that introduce the indices ¯ in the derivation. 1. w = w c2 and y = a2 y b2 trigger the following derivation (perhaps the only one). b s and c s due to the constraint imposed by the indexing mechanism. where ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ |uwyz| = n. b. 2. S ⇒ δ#uS ⇒ kδ#uaS ⇒ δ#uaSbScS ⇒ δ #uawbScS But at this point the strings b and c might block a possible derivation. n = 3: S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #abc k ¯ k ¯ k is clearly in the language. and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation. y = a1 y c1 z. Proof . c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 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. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS language is indeed Lmix . with the one proposed in 2. This blocking eﬀect can be illustrated by the following hypothetical situation: suppose uwyz might be composed by u = u b1 . 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 ).30 CHAPTER 3.

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

) 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 . This assumption is made based on the previous two claims. w. etc. 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. they are also removed in the derivation of the substring). The tests were performed on the strings of length 6 and 9. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Assume the possible empty strings u. shows that any CFG is u . x. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 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. 3.3 GILs and Dyck Languages We argue in this section that GILs correspond to the result of the “combination” of a CFG with a Dyck language. z and y do not introduce possible blocking indices (i. if indices are introduced.e. given we are considering just two possible conﬂicting indices. The well-known Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger theorem [22]. 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.32 CHAPTER 3. 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 .

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

Suppose w ∈ φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → ¯ 1 iiα [i] L(G1) is a CFL. Induction Hypothesis. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 4. y ∈ k ¯ ¯ T ∗ ) implies there is a L(G1) derivation u A ⇒ u zB (where u . The proof is an induction on the length of the computation sequence. so is za¯. φ and the corresponding CFL. 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. 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. if p = A → α then p1 = A1 → ¯ 1 ¯ i CHAPTER 3.34 iα 3. n > 1 then: Case (A) If: #S ⇒ #yB ⇒ #ya S 1 ⇒ zA1 ⇒ za¯ a It is clear that if z ∈ Dr . Suppose w ∈ L. z ∈ (T T ∪ I ∪ I)∗ ) such that z ∈ Dr k and φ(z) = y for every k < n. 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 . First direction L ⊆ φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). (2) and (3) i k n−1 n i n n−1 n−1 by Induction Hypothesis and (1) S ⇒ u A1 ⇒ u ia¯B 1 ⇒ u ia¯zC 1 ⇒ u ia¯z¯ a a a a ia¯ If u . Suppose that if there is a GIL derivation δ#uA ⇒ δ#uyB (where u. so we have deﬁned Dr . z ∈ Dr so is u ia¯z¯ a. We have to show that L = φ(Dr ∩ L(G1)). And if φ(z) = y then φ(za¯) = ya a a Case (B) If: #S ⇒ #uA ⇒ i#uaB ⇒ i#uayC ⇒ #uaya by Induction Hypothesis.

The proof is an extension of the equivalence proof between CFGs and PDAs. Σ = T = {a. S → bS j 3. ¯ = Σ∪Σ. b. j} ¯ b. EQUIVALENCE OF GIGS AND LR-2PDA #S ⇒ #yA ⇒ #ya If z ∈ Dr so is za¯a¯ and if φ(z) = y then φ(za¯a¯) = yaa a a a a Case (B) If: S 1 ⇒ u A1 ⇒ u ia¯B 1 ⇒ u ia¯zC 1 ⇒ u ia¯z¯ a then a a a ia¯ #S ⇒ #yA ⇒ i#yaB ⇒ i#uayC ⇒ #uaya i k n−1 k n−1 n−1 35 If u . S }. i. S → aS i 2. b}∪I = {i. b}. .4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA In this section we show the equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA. S → a¯iS a 6. z ∈ Dr so is u ia¯z¯ a and if φ(z) = y and φ(u ) = u then φ(u ia¯z¯ a) = uaza a ia¯ a ia¯ If other (possible) derivations were applied to u ia¯zC then the corresponding string would not a be in Dr . Theorem 2 If L is a GIL. b}∗ } Given Gww = ({S. ¯ j. This is on our view a consequence of the fact that GIGs are a natural extension of CFGs. {a. j}. S → S b¯¯ bj 1. {a. ¯ j. S. j} CF Lww = L(GwwD ). i. {i. S → S b ¯ j ¯ Let D4 be the semi-Dyck set deﬁned over Σ0 = {a. S →S a¯¯ ai 3. S → 4. S →S b¯¯ bj 4.4. S → 3. S → b¯ bjS 7. ¯ S. P ) and P = 1. ¯ i. S → S b ¯ j 6. 2. ¯ i We exemplify how the Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger equivalence of GIGs can be obtained constructu ing the grammar for the language L1: Example 13 () L(Gww ) = {ww |w ∈ {a. S → S ¯ a ia¯ 5. j}. #. ¯ i.3. P ) and P = ¯ b. S }. #. a. a. and we construct GwwD from Gww as follows: GwwD = ({S. then there exists a LR-2PDA M such that L= L(M). S → S a ¯ i 5. S → S a ¯ i 7. b.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We follow the proof presented in [37] to prove that the class of languages L(M c ). Two languages L1 .. [33. The Parikh image of a language is the set of all vectors obtained from this mapping to every string in the language. concept.1. Theorem 5 If L is a GIL then L is a semi-linear language.g. an }. We assume a deﬁnition of semilinearity of languages such as that found in [39.e. 60]. SEMILINEARITY OF GILS AND THE CONSTANT GROWTH PROPERTY 45 i. Roughly speaking. 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). Deﬁnition 8 A set V in Nn a) is linear if V = {v 0 + c1 v 1 + . [55. that CFLs are letter-equivalent to a regular set. . Lemma 4 If X and Y are semilinear subsets of Nn . + cm v m |ci ∈ N. the property of semi-linearity of GILs follows from the properties of the control mechanism that GILs use.6.g.. L is a semi-linear language.. Intuitively. [46. . Semilinearity has been assumed as a good formulation of the constant growth property of natural languages (e.4. The commutative or Parikh image of a language L ∈ Σ∗ . The Parikh mapping is a function that counts the number of occurrences in every word of each letter from an ordered alphabet. However. ψ(L) = {ψ(w)|w ∈ L}. L2 in Σ∗ are letter-equivalent if ψ(L1 ) = ψ(L2 ). If ψ(L) is semi-linear.. as Theorem 5. . where M c is obtained from an automata class C by augmenting it with ﬁnitely many reversal-bounded counters.. We will not discuss here whether semilinearity is the correct approach to formalize constant growth. |an |(w)) where |ai |(w) denotes the number of occurrences of ai in w. recently it has been claimed that semilinearity might be too strong a requirement for models of natural language (e. 86]). This property has been extensively used as a tool to characterize formal languages (e. is semilinear provided that the languages corresponding to C are semilinear. 37]). 35])..3. The proof of this lemma is in [30]. Deﬁnition 9 Parikh Mapping (see [39]) : Let Σ be {a1 .. We will use the following lemma in the proof of semilinearity for GIGs.g. v i ∈ Nn for 1 ≤ i ≤ m} b) is semilinear if V is the ﬁnite union of linear sets. then their intersection X ∩Y is also semilinear.

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

4.4. PUMPING LEMMAS AND GILS

47

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

4.4.1

GILs, ﬁnite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs

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

48

CHAPTER 4. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES

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

4.5

Derivation order and Normal Form

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

¯ i

2. A → aA

i

3. A → a

i ¯ j ¯ j

4. B → bB

j

5. B → b

j

7. C → c

¯ i

8. D → dD

9.D → d

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

4.5. DERIVATION ORDER AND NORMAL FORM

49

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

j k

2. A → aA

i

3. A → a

i

4. B → bB

j

6. C → cC | c 10.E → e

¯ i

7. D → dD

¯ j

8.D → d

¯ j

9.E → eE

¯ i

11. F → f F

¯ k

12. F → f

¯ k

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

j

2. A → aA

i k

3. A → aB

i

4. B → bB

j

6. C → cCf | cM f 10.E → De

¯ i

M → DE

7. D → dD

¯ j

8.D → d

¯ j

9.E → Ee

¯ i

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

2 2 2 2

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

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

50 1. S → aS

i

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

j

3. S → S 8. A → a

¯ i

4. S → S A 9. B → b

¯ j

5. S → S B

6. S → A

7. S → B

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

i j ¯ j ¯ i

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

i j ¯ j ¯ i

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

1 j.oldnode). Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [S → • S$.3 i.2 5. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS i. which are composed of a ”dotted” rule and a starting position: [A → α • β.ai . currentnode connects only to nodes of current length-1.2 j.0 j.52 i.1 $.3 Figure 5.2 j. n ≥ 0. Push(newnode. Retrieves all the nodes that are connected by an edge from the currentnode. Because at this point we use nodes of unambiguous length. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string.1 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm Earley Algorithm.2. 5.... Earley’s parsing algorithm [27] computes a leftmost derivation using a combination of top-down prediction and bottom-up recognition. given a string w = a1 a2 . P ) be a CFG. T. An item [A → α • β. Therefore.2 i. Pop(curretnode). Earley items are inserted in sets of states. S. These items are used to represent intermediate steps in the recognition process.an with n ≥ 0 any integer i such that 0 ≤ i ≤ n is a position in w..3 CHAPTER 5. Earley’s main data structures are states or “items”.1 j. Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the size of the indexing vocabulary. pj ] is inserted in the set of states S i if α corresponds to the recognition of the substring aj .1: Two graph-structured stacks The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack.1 $.2 i. pj ]. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. Let G = (N. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. There are as many sets as positions in the input string. 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) . Algorithm 1 (Earley Recognition for GFGs) .3 i.0 j.

An example of such case would be the following i grammar: Gd = ({S}. and O. Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#. 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. j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P : add [A → • γ. Let G = (N. j] ∈ S i : for [A → α • Bβ. j] to S i + 1 3 4 If S i+1 is empty. 0). such that O ≤ n where n is the length of the input. n ≥ 0. We modify Earley items adding two parameters: ∆. #.{S}. A → α • Aβ. if pop rules “erase” symbols from the stack. P ) be a GIG. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM If [B → α • Aβ. I.{#}. We use the graph-structured stack and we represent the stack nodes as pairs of indices and counters (the purpose of the counters is to keep track of the length of the stack for expository purposes). pj ] Algorithm 2 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) .2 Therefore Earley items for GILs might be as follows: [∆. Reject.5. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [A → αa • β. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. S. If [A → α • aβ. O.{P}) with P: S → aS | bS S→S| ¯ i . If i = n and Sn+1 = {[S → S$ • . 0]} then accept 53 5. a pointer to an active node in the graph-structured stack. k] ∈ S j : add [A → αB • β.{i}. used to record the ordering of the rules aﬀecting the stack. i] to S i b) Completer: (bottom-up recognition) If [B → γ • .{a.2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for GILs. k] to S1i c) Scanner: equivalent to shift in a shift-reduce parser. T. 0. 0). Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string.2.2.b}. S → • S$. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#.

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

0.[B].3.2)]) 12 Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.il].5.[S.d].[i.2) 11.c]. [Stacksymbol. i S→B B → bBc ¯ i B → bc ¯ i 1 Adding to chart: <10898> item(<start>.1.3.2.[].3) 15.4) .[a.c].S.2) 13.3).[i.(i.1.d].3.0) Adding to stack: <22605> item((i.2.[B].[#.[].[i.3.B.1).[b].1.1.[].c].2).e]. {i}. Postdotlist.3.[i.0.[#.Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.3.0) 2 Adding to chart: <27413> item(S.1)) 7 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.0.il]. Each item is represented as follows: item(LeftSymbol.[b.d].[].2.ir].[].1. Adding to chart: <26897> item(B.ir].(#. B}.Adding to chart: <27540> item(S.0. Adding to chart: <23851> item(B.[b.B.2.3. StackCounter.Adding to chart: <27671> item(S. StackOperation].2.1.2.[B. P.4.S.[b. Predotlist.ir].1. Example 18 (Trace of aabbccdd) L(G2 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}.[].[B.c].2) 10.ir].[B]. d}.1.1.c].c].2.2.Adding to chart: <23599> item(S.d].ir].[#.c].B.[].[#. Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.d].e].[S].[a].[].[b.3.1) 6.[].[i.[#.[i.[]. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 55 shows the recognition of the string aabbccdd with the grammar G2 transformed into a trGIG.1) 9 Adding to chart: <10640> item(S.1) 5.[i.0.[i.ir].2.1.il].0) 3 Adding to chart: <23470> item(S.c].ir].0.2) 14.[b].2.e]. #.[b.1.0.2.0.2) Adding to stack: <22863> item((i.[c].[i.0.ir]. ﬁnalposition) The stack operation is represented as follows: “il” is a push rule of the stack index “i” and “ir” is a pop rule.1) 8 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.ir].[i.1.3) 18.(i. OrderCounter. where P is: S → aSd. c.[].0.2. b. {a.[].4. Adding to chart: <27798> item(B.[a].[a.1. G2 = ({S. S).2.0)) 4 Adding to chart: <10771> item(S.[a.1) Adding to stack: <22732> item((i.3) 17.2.il].3.4.S.[#.[S.1.il].[i.[b].1.0.[b.[#.0.3) 16 Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.Adding to chart: <23724> item(S.e].2.[]. initialposition.0.

[B.[].3.a].2) aaS ⇒(i.0. Adding to chart: <27783> item(B.[d]. the following complete operation would be performed : Given [(#.[]. In other words.2) aaR⇒ (i.1)aabR[a][b]⇒(#.[S.[#. S → R 4.0.8) yes The following example shows why some bookkeeping of the order of the derivation is required in Earley items. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Adding to chart: <22956> item(B.6) 24.2.[].[b].0. The pairs in parenthesis represent the nodes of the graph-structured stack: (#. R → Rb | b ¯ j The following derivation is not possible (in particular step 4).7) 27.ir]. the corresponding productions of the grammar Gww repeated below and the string aaba 1. Adding to chart: <10982> item(<start>. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5.[].1.a].3) aabR⇒(i.S.1) aS ⇒ (i.[#.[d]. 3. S → bS j 3. Adding to chart: <10754> item(S. Adding to chart: <23085> item(B.[#.1.b].3) aabS ⇒(j .3. (#.2. 0). aaRa ⇒ (?.0.[S].[#.0.4) 20.[c].il].7) 26. Adding to chart: <23215> item(S.0)aaba[a][b] ¯ i 6 After recognized this substring.ir]. 3] ∈ S 4 and [(j.[c.?) aaba i i ¯ i ¯ j 1 2 3 4 However.e]. j .0) S ⇒ (x.S.8) 28.1) aS ⇒ (i.il].0.[B]. Adding to chart: <10883> item(S.2.e]. 3.[#. instead of the one introduced at step 5.5) 21.0. 3] to S 4 Then the following are sequentially added to S 4 : a) [(#. Adding to chart: <27654> item(B. Consider the language Lww = {ww |w ∈ {a.b].[#.4.[c. R → a • .il].3.b]. 2].[].1.[c].[#. 6.[S.ir].56 19 CHAPTER 5. S → bS • . Adding to chart: <23342> item(S. 2.[#.6) 23. 0).3. the completer operation may jump up two steps and complete the “R” introduced after step 3.0.0.2.a].2)aabR[b]⇒ i i j ¯ j ¯ i 1 2 3 4 5 (i. S → aS i 2.6) 25. In the following example the square brackets represent substrings to be recognized.0. b}∗ }. 3] ∈ S 3 : ¯ j add [(#.[]. This bookkeeping is performed here by the order parameter.B.2) aaS ⇒ (j .4. S → • R.il].1).1.0.0. 0).a]. 3).[#.0) S ⇒ (i.5) 22. Adding to chart: <10625> item(S.[d.0.[#.2.[d.ir]. S → R • .2.0. the following sequences can be generated using Earley’s Algorithm if no ordering constraint is enforced at the Completer Operation.

j}. 0). push push pop pop Figure 5. . S → aS • . R}. 2). completed-stack ambiguity and stack-position ambiguity. 0. {i. 4. The ambiguity arises in the following conﬁguration S ⇒ aabR which would lead to the following items: [(#. 1]. 2). R → bc ¯ i 6. This is depicted in the following ﬁgure 5.5. R → bd ¯ j 4. 0] i 5. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM b) [(#. The predict-complete ambiguity In this case. {a. 1. 2]. R → bRc ¯ i 5. S → aS • . R → • ∗ • b c. S → aSc j 3. c. 2] and b d. at some predict steps. #. and at completer cases. 0). the complete operation of the previous algorithm does not specify the correct constraints.2.2. 4. Example 19 Gamb4 = ({S. there is no way to control the correct derivation given no information on the pop moves has been stored. i 57 c) [(#. It cannot handle cases of what we call predict-complete ambiguity. d}. P ) where P is: 1. 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. b. complete steps have to check that there is a corresponding pop-move item that has been completed for every item produced at a reduced push move.2: Push and Pop moves on the same spine The following grammar produces alternative derivations which illustrate this issue. The exact prediction path that led to the current conﬁguration has to be transversed back in the complete steps. In other words. At this point. R → [(#. S.3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs The Algorithm presented in the preceding section does not specify all the necessary constraints. S → R 7.2. S → aSd i 2.

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

These operations enable the computation of the Dyck language over the graph-structured stack. precednode). We will discuss it again below. We say ∆i > ∆j if ∆i = (δ i . Push(newnode. and pi > pj . A node ∆+ designates a node corresponding to a push move on the stack. It retrieves all the nodes in I that are connected by an edge to the push node that currentnode reduces. after a reduce operation has been done. It is a pair (δ. ∆j = (δ j . oldnode.4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: ﬁnal version Revised Operations on the stack We will use the following notation. A node can connect to any node at a preceding position. pi ). as is speciﬁed in algorithm 5 and depicted in ﬁgure 5. Therefore. Creates a complete edge from currentnode to precednode if necessary. The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. This operation is the equivalent of the previous Pop function with a stack ¯ that keeps record of the nodes in I. It also creates an i-edge from initialnode to newnode. Path(currentnode).5.e. It is a pair (δ. the path function obtains the nodes in I which can be active.oldactivnode.initialnode). We say ∆+ ∈ I.2.10. p) such that δ is an index and p > 0 (p s are integers). GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 61 5. p < 0. Therefore ∆+ will designate a node corresponding to a pop move which ¯ “removes” ∆+ . pj ). We will use a slightly more complicated version that takes into account completed nodes and the initial nodes introduced by the Push operation. We say ∆− ∈ I. . It ﬁnds the preceding unreduced push node after one or more reductions have been performed. i. These edges will be represented then by triples: (newnode. The modiﬁcations are ¯ necessary due to the fact that the graph-structured stack contains both nodes in I and I. PushC(currentnode. On the other hand ∆− will designate a push node which has been removed by ∆− . We will use also the complement notation to designate the ¯ corresponding complements. Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the position of the current node.2. Note that the position is determined by the corresponding position of the terminal introduced by the push production. for a node at position pi there might be pi−1 edges to other nodes. p) such ¯ ¯ that δ ∈ I. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. initialnode). A node ∆− designates a node corresponding to a pop move in the stack.

−2 S S S S S Figure 5.1 j. The returned set of nodes represent points in the derivation at which to continue performing reductions at complete time. −2 i.−3 i. −2 j. −1 j. −1 j. named edgeC.1 j.1 $.2 i.10: Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes i The following operation operates on the reverse direction of the Path function.3 j.0 i. ∆ + 2 ∈ I 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edge((∆ − 1. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . Path2 returns a set of nodes in I accessible from another node in I. Path2 performs them at complete time.0 j.62 Algorithm 3 . 2 j. ∆ − 3 ∈ I.3 j. While Path performs them at predict time. 2 j.3 i.−3 i.2 i. Path obtains the closest non reduced nodes ¯ ¯ in I. Completed nodes are designated by a particular kind of edge. −2 j. The portion of the graph that is already reduced corresponds to completed nodeswhich already matched their respective complements.1 $. Path(∆ − 1 ): CHAPTER 5. −3 i. ∆ + 2 ) add ∆ + 2 to valueset ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 . Both Path and Path2 perform Dyck language reductions on the graph structured stack. −3 j. . and ∆ − 1 . ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset S S i.3 i.

DI = I ∪ I ∪ {#}). We refer to these as transmitted nodes. p) to the node (δ. We ¯ ¯ say a node ∆− is in I if it designates a pair (delta. p < 0.11: 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. deﬁned as follows: cl(δ) = cδ for any δ ∈ DI ∆cl represents a node (cl(δ). p > 0. . Path2(∆ − 1 ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . -2 j. ∆2 ) add ∆2 to valueset ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 . p) such that δ ∈ I. p) such that δ ∈ DI and p is an integer. 0). ∆In . We say a node ∆+ is in I if it designates a pair (δ. p) (∆) in the stack. Two parameters represent the portion of the stack: the current active node ∆Ac and the initial node ∆In .1 j. but inherit the last generated node. -3 S S paths $. We use a substitution mapping cl from DI into DI ∪ {c}∗ . A node ∆cl (or cl(∆)) is a pointer (cl(δ). and positive. A → α • aβ. 2 j. 2 j. j] ∈ S i ¯ Nodes are represented by pairs of elements in I ∪ I ∪ {#}. We need also to represent those constituents that did not generate a node of their own ( a push or pop derivation).1 j.e.0 j. -1 j. [∆Ac . -2 j. will be denoted by DI (i.0 j.2. negative integers and zero respectively. ∆ − 3 ∈ I. ∆ − 1 ∈ I) and : ∆2 ∈ I ∪ {#} 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edgeC((∆ − 1. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 4 . p) such that δ ∈ I. The vocabulary corresponding to the set of indices (I). -3 Figure 5. ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset c c S 63 $.3 j. -1 j. their ¯ ¯ complements (I) and the empty stack symbol (#). The empty stack is then represented by the node (#.5.3 j.

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

S. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [(#. Let G = (N. 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. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM Algorithm 6 (Earley Recognition for GIGs) . δ ∈ DI and the absolute value of p (abs(p)) refers to the position in w = a1 . This is also required for productions ¯ that check the top of the stack: (A → γ) when the triggering item Active node is in I.2. Initialize the graph-structured stack with the node (#. 0). we represent nodes in the graph-structured stack with pairs (δ ± . scanner. p) such that −n ≤ p ≤ n. The operations predictor. 0).. P ) be a GIG. In the pop case there are two subcases (1. Reject. to retrieve the active nodes in I.. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string.a): ¯ the active node in the triggering item is in I or (1. (#. 0). Ac(δ 1 .an in which the index δ + in I was introduced.2. I. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. T. 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. 0). Prediction and Scanner Operations Prediction Operations will be divided in diﬀerent subcases. S → S$ • . (#. In the second case. p0 ) designates an item initial node. 0). 0).b) where the active node is in I.2. n ≥ 0. S → • S$. 0]} then accept 65 The structure of the main loop of Earley’s algorithm remains unchanged except for the requirement that the initial item at S 0 (line 1) and the accepting item at S n + 1 (line 4) have an empty stack Active and Initial node: (#. the function path is used. These subcases are constrained by the type of production applied (push. [δ] . p1 ) designates an item active node (∆Ac ) and I(δ 0 . #. If i = n and Sn+1 = {[(#. pop or e-move).5.

p1 ). I(δ 0 . (δ 0 . p0 ). pr )) and δ 2 = δ 3 and p3 = −p2 and push( (δ 2 . I(δ 0 . A → α • aβ. (δ r .66 1. A → • γ. B → α • Aβ. (δ 1 . j] ∈ S i . p0 ). All the completer operations . A → • γ. p1 ). p0 ). p2 ).a Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I If [Ac(δ 1 . ¯ such that: δ 2 = δ 1 and p2 = −p1 (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and ¯ δ 2 ∈ I = δ¯ : 1 add every [Ac(δ 2 . p2 ). p2 ). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS If [Ac(δ 1 . A → • γ. i] to S i and push( (δ 2 . pr )) 1. p2 ). p2 ). (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and δ 2 ∈ I: add every [Ac(δ 2 . p0 ) ) 1. ∆In . p0 ). I(cl(δ 0 ).1 Predictor Push CHAPTER 5. p0 ). p2 ). p1 ). (δ 0 . p2 ). p1 ). p3 ). j] ∈ S i . (δ 1 . Scanner If [∆Ac .b Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I ¯ If [Ac(δ 1 . i] to S i ¯ such that: (δ 3 . δ r . I(δ 0 . I(δ 2 . (δ 0 . δ 1 ∈ I and δ 2 = δ add every [Ac(δ 1 . (δ 3 . and push( (δ 2 . j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P and δ 1 . p1 ). δ 2 ∈ I: δ2 add every [Ac(δ 2 . A → αa • β.2. p3 ) ∈ path((δ 1 . (δ 0 . p2 ). p2 ). (δ 1 . p1 ). j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [∆A . p1 ). i] to S i 2. p1 ). p1 ). p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . I(δ 0 . I(δ 2 . j] to S i + 1 Completer Operations The diﬀerent subcases of Completer operations are motivated by the contents of the Active Node ∆Ac and the Initial Node ∆In in the triggering completed item (item in S i ) and also by the contents of the Initial Node ∆I0 of the combination target item (item in S j ). p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . I(δ 2 . i] to S i such that: p2 = i + 1.2.3 Predictor e-move If [Ac(δ 1 . p2 ). A → • γ. j] ∈ S i δ= and (A → γ) ∈ P such that δ ¯ or δ = [δ 1 ] or (δ 2 . ∆In . B → α • Aβ. p2 ). B → α • Aβ. p1 ). p0 )) ¯ 1. B → α • Aβ. p2 ) ∈ path(δ 1 .

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

e ∆Ac = (δ 2 . B → γ • . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS I_3 I−edge edge I_3 Ac_2 + Ac_2 + − − Figure 5. ). I(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. k] ∈ S j pushC( (δ 3 . j] ∈ S i δ 3 ∈ I.13: Completer A 3. There are two additional constraints. k] to S i and such that I_0 − + I_0 I−edge + − I_3 + push edge + Ac_2 + Ac_2 + Figure 5.b Completer B: Push with Active Node in I ∪ {#}. The ﬁrst is −p2 < pI . I(δ 3 . In this case ¯ ¯ the active node ∆Ac is in I (i. A → α • Bβ. δ 2 ∈ I ∪ {#}. (δ 0 . p2 ) such that δ 2 ∈ I and −n ≤ p2 < 0).14: Completer B Subcase 3. The existence of an edge between ∆In and ∆I0 is checked as in the previous cases. p3 ). p3 ). p2 ). and (p2 > −1) : for edge((δ 3 . p0 )) such that: ¯ δ 0 ∈ I ∪ I. I(δ 0 .68 I_0: e−move CHAPTER 5. A → αB • β. It should be noted that the string position in which an index in I is introduced constrains the possible orderings of the control . p0 ). ( . ∆In ∈ I. add [Ac(δ 2 . p2 ). p0 ). p0 )) and for [ . δ 0 . p3 ). (p2 > −1) If [Ac(δ 2 .c also combines a triggering item generated by a push production.

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

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

). δ 0 ∈ I and p2 > p3 4 There ¯ is a complete path of I elements that reaches the one that complements δ 0 .p_4) + − I_3=A_2 Ac_2 − Figure 5. These two alternatives are allowed by p2 > p3 . the Active Node is positive (∆Ac+ ).f Completer F.δ 2 = δ 3 for edge(δ 1 . B → γ • . −p0 )4 ¯ ¯ else if −p2 > p0 and there is an edge (δ¯ .e Completer E. −p0 ) 2 else if p2 = p3 . or exceeds it. p5 ). Part of this constraint might be speciﬁed in the Completer Case G. p5 ). I(δ 3 . p2 < 0 : Compute path2 (δ 2 . −p0 .5. (∆Ac− ). p5 ) ≥ (δ 0 . (δ 0 . 3. for [Ac(δ 1 . Pop items with Push items: p0 > 0.2. p5 ) ∈ path2(δ 2 . (δ 0 . I(δ 0 . ∆In ). p3 ). j] ∈ S i such that δ 2 δ 3 ∈ I. ) add [Ac(δ 5 . and −p2 > p0 and (δ 5 .17: Completer E. p0 ). The information that ∆In was completed is stored by the completed edge (∆In . (δ 1 . Pop items with Push items and graph reduction ¯ If [Ac(δ 2 . p1 )(δ 5 . −p2 ). Either the Active Node is a closing parenthesis.c. p1 ). and (δ 5 . last case Subcase 3. k] to S i I_0 5 71 + − i−edge Ac_1 I_0 (d_4. p2 ). p0 )) where ¯ δ 3 = δ 1 . . δ 1 ∈ I. δ 0 ∈ I and p0 > 0. 5δ ¯2 6 An was introduced after δ 0 was reduced. alternatively. p2 ) for edge((δ 3 . A → αB • β. I(δ 0 . p3 = −p1 . p2 ). p1 ). p0 ). GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM the result. in other words ∆Ac > ∆In . and (δ 5 . p3 . k] ∈ S j such that ¯ If p1 > p0 . A → α • Bβ. The Active node ∆Ac is updated according to the performed reduction. which has not yet exceeded the position of its opening parenthesis. p3 ).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.p_4) path + − + pop edge reduced graph Ac: (d_4. This case is relevant for the language Lgenabc edge to itself. p5 ) = (δ 0 .6 3.

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

≤ i Thus there might be at most O(i3 ) items in each set S i . For each active node there might be at most i edges. I(δ 2 . ∆I0 ) ¯ check for ∆In reduce: ∆A ← ∆In − 1 reduce with path2 pushC(∆In . might require O(i2 ). Predictor pop. COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS I_0 73 − I_0 i−edge − I_3 Ac_2 − Ac_2 − Figure 5. transmitted Speciﬁc Actions ∆I 0 ← ∆In pushC(∆In . −) 5.(∆A > ∆In ) +/ +/TARGET ITEM transmitted +/+/+/+/. p1 ).(∆A = ∆I ) +/. Predictor e-move and Predictor Push operations on an item each require constant time.3 5. p2 ).3. therefore the pop procedure might take time O(i2 ) for each set S i . Scanner. −) pushC(∆In . A → α • Bβ. j] where: 0 ≤ j. which may have O(i) active nodes. Each item in S i has the form: [Ac(δ 1 .5.1 Complexity Analysis Overview The algorithm presented above has one sequential iteration (a for loop). p2 . . p1 .3.19: Completer G Summary of Completer Cases CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM +/+ + + transmitted ACTIVE NODE +/+ ¯ .∆Ac + + +/-. It has a maximum of n iterations where n is the length of the input..

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

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

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

and −pAc > pI0 and ∆I0 ∈ path2(∆Ac ) ¯ ¯ else if −pAc > pI0 and there is an edge (∆Ac . ∆I0 . ) ¯ add [∆I0 . ∆IO and k produce give O(n3 )). j] ∈ S i for edge(∆In .e Completer E. ∆IO ∈ I such that ¯ ∆Ac = ∆I . A → αB • β. COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS 77 In each set in S i there might be at most O(|I|2 · |G| · n3 ) items. ∆I0 . B → γ • . ∆I0 ) where for [∆Ac1 .5. ∆In . ∆I0 . given the node ∆Ac1 has to be considered to compute the result item added to the S i set ( the values of ∆Ac . A → α • Bβ. abs(pAc ). so its bound is O(|I| · i3 ) for each set S i (∆Ac ) is bound by i). n. A → αB • β. recalculation of ∆Ac : Completer D and Completer E ¯ 3. pAc . Each such item can be combined with at most O(|I|2 · |G| · n3 ) items in each set in S j . A → α • Bβ. So the total is n × O(|I| · n) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) × O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) = O(|I|3 · |G|2 · n6 ) 3. There are O(n) possible values for each ∆Ac . We will analyze each of them in turn. Completer Case 2.3. k] ∈ S j such that: ∆0 ∈ I ∪ I. 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. These additional operations are performed provided certain constraints are met. Subcase 1 ¯ If [∆Ac . ∆I0 . B → γ • .∆In and j : 0 ≤ j. Pop items with Push items that re-compute the value Active node. ∆Ac1 . ¯ There are at most O(|I| · |G| · n2 ) items in S j that satisfy this condition. k] ∈ S j such that the following conditions imposed on the edges are satisﬁed: ¯ if pAc1 > pI0 . 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 . This requires the pA value of ∆Ac to be equal to −pI in ∆In (their integer values are opposites). ) is done in constant time. ∆I0 . ¯ ∆In = ∆Ac1 .d Completer D: Push with Active Node in I If [∆Ac . ∆Ac1 . add [∆Ac1 . ∆Ac1 . k] to S i Computing the set path2 for each ∆Ac takes O(|I| · n2 ) time. j] ∈ S i such that ∆Ac ∆In ∈ I. performing reductions. pIn < 0 : Compute path2(∆Ac ) for edge(∆In . ∆In . Checking if ∆I0 ∈ ¯ ¯ path2(∆Ac ) or there is an edge (∆Ac . ∆I0 . ∆0 ) and ¯ for [∆Ac1 . abs(pIn ).

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

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

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

5. δ = z iﬀ δ ∈ I ∪ I.aj . ∗ S ν a 1 . The remaining conditions specify the properties of the string νz µy π relative to the control language C. It will also help to understand the implementation of the algorithm we detail in the appendix. speciﬁes the properties for the diﬀerent types of productions that generated the current item. Figure 5.21: GIG invariant We will use Parsing Schemata to prove this proposition. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . i+1 aj ν z µ yπ Figure 5. speciﬁes that the item has a transmitted node from the graph if the empty string was generated in the control language. speciﬁes the properties of information of the graph-structured stack encoded in the item. # γ .4. ∈ cl(δ ). Condition b. π ∈ C and νz µy πρ ∈ C for some ρ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .4. which naturally embed the invariant properties of the Earley algorithm for CFGs. p0 ≤ i + 1 and p1 ≤ j. speciﬁes the constraints related to the position correlation with the strings in the generated language. Condition a. d. δ ∈ DI iﬀ z µy π = epsilon.α η β µ . 76]. µπ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .... ν. else δ = ¯ ¯ ¯ c. 5. z. y = y .. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ 81 3.. ¯ b.2 Parsing Schemata We use Parsing Schemata. Condition c. α. a framework that allows high-level speciﬁcation and analysis of parsing algorithms [75. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 2.21 depicts the properties of the invariant.. y π A z ai a . y ∈ I ∪ I iﬀ z = z . #νz µy π Such that: a. z. This framework enables the analysis of relations between diﬀerent parsing . Condition d.

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

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

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

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

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

An item [path. Because we introduced another class of items. −p2 ). (y. it holds that ξ ∈ W . (ii) for each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 . : W ⊆ I a set of items. S. 1 ≤ i ≤ k. p0 )] is valid for a string a1 · · · aj if and only if the following holds: ¯ ¯ 1. Assume that any item η in W with derivation length less than m is obtained (if d(η) < m then η ∈ V(P)). IC EGIG . the items corresponding to the control language. # ⇒ a1 . then prove that all ξ with d(ξ) = m. • Proof of soundness for all the deduction steps: V(P) ⊆ W. 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. to use in the induction proof. (x. · · · . 2. ξ ∈ V(P). p2 > p1 ≥ p0 3.. η k ξ ∈ D such that {η 1 . p1 ). νx = µyπ such that y ∈ I. (z. · · · .aj γ. we need also an invariant for the computation of the control properties. Deﬁnition 13 (derivation length function ) 10 Let (P) be a parsing schema. #νx for some γ ∈ N V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ and x ∈ I. Show that all the viable items (all possible derivations are deduced by the algorithm). and π ∈ C ∗ .11 Proposition 7 (Invariant of the Path function) . In other words that the deduction steps preserve the invariant property. The derivation length function is deﬁned according to the properties of the parsing algorithm. A function d : H ∪ W → N is a dlf if (i) d(h) = 0 for h ∈ H.4.5. This proof uses a so-called deduction length function (dlf ). • Proof of completeness: W ⊆ V(P).. η k } ⊆ W and d(η i ) < d(ξ) for 1 ≤ i ≤ k. It has to be shown that for all η1 · · · ηk ξ ∈ D with η i ∈ H ∪ W.

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

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

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

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

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

α. i] is inserted in the Set S j . then an item ξ = [Ac(y. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ ¯ 3. This lemma is equivalent to the following claim in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM cl(x)µ y π = Therefore the result is νzµuπ 93 The following table 5. ¯ µ = µ x )µ reduce: #νz µ u π ¯ #νz µ(u π u )µ y π reduce: #νz µ y π #νz µu πx )µ y π pushC(∆In . p1 ).1 summarizes the conditions speciﬁed by the Completer Operations. Result x µy π #νz µu π(x µ (y π #νz µu π(x µ y )π . p1 ) I(z. Completeness) . CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM I1(x. For each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 · · · η k 1 ≤ i ≤ k. p2 ) +/+/+ –+ + – + -x=u ¯ cl(xµyπ ) = –: y=x ¯ +/. −) #νzµuπ +:u Table 5. If 1. It states that all the derivations in the grammar will have the corresponding item in the set of states. p0 ). #ν 2. A → α • β.1: Conditions on the completer Deductions Lemma 8 (Second direction.2 and Proposition 6.(x < y) +/ TARGET ITEM Ac1(u. . S. p0 ) cl(z µu π) = +/+/+/+/+ +/-. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ. I(z. p3 ) Ac(y.4.5. #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] Let 1. #ν ⇒ a1 · · · ai . #ν zν uν xµyπ with minimal µ + ρ ¯ then if δ = x ∈ I ∪ I η = [Ac(u. α. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ 3. . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS The proof by induction on the derivation length function d applied to the derivations speciﬁed in 1. j]) = min{π + 2λ + 2µ + j | S. Therefore the derivation length function is the same as deﬁned by [76] as follows: d([Ac(y. p0 ). #ν µ λ π 12 ∧ } ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . A → αB • β. I(z.94 CHAPTER 5. ν zν yν • Scanner: ξ = [Ac(y. p0 ). I(z. #ν 2. η ξ. #ν zν uν δ ⇒ aj +1 · · · ak . S. #ν ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . The modiﬁcation of the Earley algorithm for GIGs does not modify the treewalk that the algorithm performs. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . # ⇒ δAγ. p1 ). p1 ). because of the Completer operation. #ν α. i. #ν ∧ δ. #ν . 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 . d(η) = d(ξ) − 1 and ζ. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ . #νzν yν ∗ ¯ } if δ ∈ I ∪ I else δ = Then η = [Ac(y. I(z. i] is in S j . p1 ). p0 ). A → αa • β. such that the invariant holds for those items previously introduced in the item set. #ν zν uν ⇒ γ. p0 ). i] in S k Let S. j − 1. A → α • β. p2 ). i] is in S j −1 and from ζ = [a. 12 Notice that induction on the strict length of the derivation would not work. A → α • aβ. j] ∈ HGIG d(ζ) = 0. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ . I(z. I(z. #ν zν uν B. p0 ). p1 ). #ν zν uν δ δ ρ µ ∗ and γ. A → α • Bβ. • Completers: ξ = [Ac(y. and 3. The derivation length function is based on the treewalk that the Earley algorithm performs. α.

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

2. as a meta-interpreter. each new item may itself generate new consequences.2 was implemented in Sicstus Prolog on top of a general-purpose. the parsing algorithm described in section 5. (b) Add the trigger item to the chart. the relation between the abstract inference rules described in the previous section as parsing schema and the implementation we used is extremely transparent. and remove it. the prototype is not particularly eﬃcient. The general form of an agenda-driven. its consequences are computed and themselves added to the agenda for later consideration. and Lemma 8 W ⊆ V(P). if necessary. However. When an item is removed from the agenda and added to the chart. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Therefore from Lemma 7 ( V(P) ⊆ W).5 Implementation In order to perform some tests and as a proof of concept. Items should be added to the chart as they are proved. Encodings of the parsing schema as inference rules are interpreted by the inference engine. 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). Any new potential items are added to an agenda of items for temporarily recording items whose consequences under the inference rules have not been generated yet. the inference engine provides the control and data types. called the trigger item. The Prolog database is used as a chart which plays the same role as the state sets in Earley’s algorithm. Because the inference rules are stated explicitly. 5. Initialize the chart to the empty set of items and the agenda to the axioms of the deduction system. 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. we have proved the correctness of the Parsing Schema V(P) = W. chart-based deduction procedure is as follows (from [72]): 1.96 CHAPTER 5. Those new potential items are triggered by items added to the chart. agenda-based inference engine described in [72]. However. Given that the parsing schema abstracts from implementation details of an algorithm. Repeat the following steps until the agenda is exhausted: (a) Select an item from the agenda. .

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

Therefore the set of items has to encode the corresponding top-down prediction that aﬀects the stack of indices. We say a GIG item index pair [ δ.000 ≈ 16.aj β 2 β.736 50. It is also more complex because GIL derivation requires leftmost derivation for the stack operations. 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. 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. 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 Copy L. [41]. In the GIG case.. We use this notion of viable preﬁxes to describe the computation of the rm rm ∗ main stack in a LR-2PDA.100 MCopy L.625 104. the technique we present here converts an LR GIG into a deterministic LR-2PDA according to the deﬁnition presented in Chapter 2.6 LR parsing for GILs An LR parser for a CFL is essentially a compiler that converts an LR CFG into a DPDA automaton (cf.6. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS n4 1296 10..500 ≈ 2. Both [75] and [3] describe transformations of Earley Parsing Schemata to LR Parsing Schemata. ≈ 100 ≈ 400 ≈ 700 ≈ 1.000 ≈6. ∗ ∗ rm rm ∗ .000 ≈ 9. [2])...1 LR items and viable preﬁxes We assume the reader has knowledge of LR parsing techniques (cf. IN ). The similarities of Earley Parsing and LR parsing are made explicit in those transformations. ≈ 300 ≈ 1.800 5.000 ≈ 28.ai Aβ ⇒ δγ j a1 . 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. This approach can be extended to a Generalized LR parsing approach. if multiple values are allowed in the parsing table (cf.500 ≈2.000 20. We will refer to the connections between Earley parsing and LR parsing to clarify this presentation.976 Mix L.100 ≈5. ≈ 500 ≈ 2. [2]). [80]). The sets that deﬁne the states in GIG LR parsing are composed by a pair of sets (IT.98 Length 6 9/10 12 15/16 18 CHAPTER 5. 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 . 5.

or (ii) µ δ B → aγ then add the item B → • γ (case 1) or the item B → • aγ (case 2) to IT if it is not δ δ δ already there. ) = {B → • γ |B → γ is a production } (a NFA transition) In the GIG case the transitions should be as follows.[3]). For CFG parsing (cf. If IT is a set of items for a grammar G. b}.The transitions of this NFA are of the following form: δ(A → α • Bβ. ι) = {(B → • γ. {i. Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to the closure of IT . If A → α • Bβ is in closure(IT ) and (i) B → γ is a production where δ is in I ∪ { }. Initially. #. R → Rb ¯ j The set of states for the grammar Gwcw should encode the possible conﬁgurations of the stack of indices as follows: . [41]) the Closure operation is equivalent to obtaining the set of states of a NFA that recognizes the viable preﬁxes. b}∗ }.2 The Closure Operation. then closure(IT ) is the set of items constructed from IT by the two rules: 1. ¯ 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. S → aS i 2. Example 21 L(Gwcw ) = {wcw |w ∈ {a. R → Ra ¯ i 5. ) |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. {a. The Closure operation is equivalent to the Predict function in Earley parsing (cf. However in Earley’s algorithm this computation is done in run-time while in LR parsing it is precompiled in the LR states. 2. R}. S → cR 6. Gwcw = ({S.6. every item in IT is added to closure(IT ). They are also determined by the Goto operation. The following example uses a grammar for the language Lwcw to depict the construction of the set of items. if the index operation is for instance ¯: ι δ(A → α • Bβ. For the GIG algorithm the set of items and possible index values cannot be determined only by the Closure operation. Such productions are considered in case 2 of the Goto function. the goto function and the parsing table.5. R → [#] 4. S. S → bS j 3. P ) and P is: 1.6. j}. LR PARSING FOR GILS 99 5. .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 5.3: Trace of the LR-parser on the input abcab and grammar Gwcw .

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

T. >⇒< a1 . B [. Those control strings are encoded in the derivation of each spine as depicted in ﬁgure 6.an | < S. and C is a control set deﬁned by a CFG (a Dyck language): {a1 . wn >. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6. In other words. # ⇒ w. C): {w | S. P ).1. (we follow Gazdar’s notation: the leftmost element within the brackets corresponds to the top of the stack).108 CHAPTER 6. w1 > .. #δ and w is in T ∗ .2 and 6. as is depicted in the ﬁgure 6.. wn ∈ C}.. and every possible spine is independent. < an .. the control of the derivation can be distributed over diﬀerent paths.2 The palindrome language CFGs generate structural descriptions for palindrome languages (e. Gazdar suggests that the conﬁguration in ﬁgure 6. 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).] B ∗ ∗ A B pop push C A [] B [. L. .3.1 at the right. S.1 at the left. but every substring encoded in a spine has to belong to the control set language. the language {wwR |w ∈ Σ∗ }) only of the nested (center embedded) sort. It is easy to see that no control substring obtained in a derivation subtree is necessarily in the control language. Those control words describe the properties of a path (a spine) in the tree generated by the grammar G. however those paths are connected transversely by the leftmost derivation order. the control strings wi are not necessarily connected to each other...1: LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation 6. G = (N..g.. C). CFGs cannot generate the structural descriptions depicted in ﬁgures 6. In other words.1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs Every LIL can be characterized by a language L(G. w1 .i] C [] push pop Figure 6.. where G is a labeled grammar (cf. We gave an alternative deﬁnition of the language of a GIG in chapter 5 to be the control language: L(G. [87]). ai ∈ T ∪ { }.1.2 would be necessary to represent Scandinavian .

e.a] [c. But the exact mirror image of that structure.4 at the left. A}.b..a] [c. AP. [.2: A non context-free structural description for the language wwR unbounded dependencies. {i.b. {a.e.] a b c d d c b a Figure 6.. 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 . c}.a] [b. (i.3: Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR However GIGs generate a similar structural description as depicted in ﬁgure 6.1.] Figure 6.3) 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. In such structure the dependencies are introduced in the leftmost derivation order..a] [a] [.b.a] [d. b.a] [d. The corresponding structural description is shown in ﬁgure 6. The English adjective constructions that Gazdar uses to motivate the LIG derivation are generated by the following GIG grammar.] [a] [b.a] [a] [.6. #.b..c. (i.a] [c.b. A.a] [b. N P. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 109 [.c.a] [c.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b.b. ¯ Gadj = ({AP. Such an structure can be obtained using a GIG (and of course an LIG).4: Example 22 (Comparative Construction) . in productions that are not in Greibach Normal Form). j}. the structure of ﬁgure 6.

b.b.a] [a..c... a similar one can be obtained using the same strategy as we used with the comparative construction.5: Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language Gazdar further argues that the following tree structure.] a A a b [.6 at the left. could . APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [..d] [c.a] [.b.b.c.. but not the one at the right.a] [a] [b.a] [a] [.] NP AP [. However.c] NP [d.110 CHAPTER 6.] a b c d a b c d [b.d] b [d] c d Figure 6..d] a [b.] [. shown in ﬁgure 6.c] [c. the introduction of indices is dependent on the presence of lexical information and its transmission is not carried through a top-down spine.b..c..b.a] c A A [a.b.d] [c..a] [b.c.3 The Copy Language Gazdar presents the following two possible LIG structural descriptions for the copy language (depicted in ﬁgure 6.] NP NP c NP [.a] [c. The structural description at the left can be generated by a GIG. The arrows show the leftmost derivation order that is required by the operations on the stack.] [a] a b c d [c.d] [d] [. On the other hand. 6.. as in the LIG case.a] c d d a [b.] A NP b [c] [a] [b.] A [b.4: GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR It should be noted that the operations on indices are reversed as compared to the LIG case shown in ﬁgure 6.5).c] a b A c [c] b Figure 6.a] [c. [.a] [d.1.] AP AP AP [.] [b.3.b.c.

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

. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6. F. Example 23 (Dependent branches) .. #. L}.] [i.i] d [i] b b [.] [i. Gsum = ({S. The corresponding structure is depicted in the ﬁgure 6.11.i] [i] c c d [.i] [i.i] b [.] b Figure 6. S.i] [i] d [.. The following language cannot be generated by LIGs. d. P ) where P is: .] [i] a a [i.] c [i] [i.112 CHAPTER 6.. [. L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}. f }.1.. which permits composition of functions with unbounded number of arguments and generates tree sets with dependent paths..9 (right). e.] c c Figure 6. R.] [..9: A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies GIGs can also produce other structures that cannot be produced by a LIG.] c c b [i. The relevant structures that can be produced by a LIG are depicted in ﬁgures 6. GIGs can generate the same structures as in 6.8 and 6.] [i] [. {i}.9 (left).8: LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies [...8 and the somehow equivalent in 6.i] d [i] b c d a a [i] b b [.. It is mentioned in [82] in relation to the deﬁnition of composition in [79] Categorial Grammars.] d [.10 and 6.4 Multiple dependencies Gazdar does not discuss of the applicability of multiple dependency structures in [29]. as we show in ﬁgures 6. c. b.10 (at the right). {a.

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

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

6.. c1 . D. LIGs and Greibach Normal Form The deﬁnition of GIGs requires push productions in Greibach Normal Form. b2 . If an equivalence between LIGs and LIGs with push productions in GNF could be obtained.i] γ .2. L. we could proceed as follows. In this section we are going to address the issue of whether LILs and GILs are comparable under set inclusion. c2 .. B ∈ N. {x. b1 . {a1 . 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) .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. d2 }. #.] → a B[. L2 }. Lcrm = {an am bn cn bm cm dm dn |n. S. P ) and P is: S→AL x ¯ A → a1 A B 1 | a1 A2 B 1 L2 → C D A2 → a2 A2 y y ¯ B 1 → b B| b x L → c1 L d1 | c1 L2 d1 D → d2 d2 y ¯ C → b2 C C 2 | b2 C 2 C 2 → c2 C 2 y The derivation of a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 c2 c2 c2 d2 d2 d2 d1 d1 S ⇒ AL ⇒ #a1 AB 1 L ⇒ #a1 a1 A2 B 1 B 1 L ⇒ yyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 B 1 B 1 L ⇒ xxyyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 L ⇒ yyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 CDd1 d1 ⇒ #a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 C 2 C 2 C 2 Dd1 d1 ⇒ yyy#a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 c2 c2 Dd1 d1 ⇒ #a1 a1 a2 a2 a2 b1 b1 c1 c1 b2 b2 b2 c2 c2 c2 d2 d2 d2 d1 d1 ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ 6. A. Gcrm = ({S. a ∈ T and γ ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ : • A[. y}. d1 . C. a2 . Deﬁnition 14 A LIG is in push Greibach Normal Formal if every push production is in Greibach Normal Form (where A. related to the operation of generalized composition in CCGs. A2 . Our conjecture is that LILs are properly included in GILs.

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. T. Lemma 10 Deﬁne an A − production to be a production with variable A on the left.] such that 1 ≤ i ≤ r ... I ∪ {γ }. B[. if a lemma such as the following statement could be proved.] → A[. Let G1 = (N ∪ {B}.. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS Lemma 9 For any LIG in push-Greibach Normal Formal there is an Equivalent GIG that generates the same language.] → B[]α be a production in P and B[. I. index γ to I and replacing the A−productions by the productions: A[.] → [. from a LIG derivation to a GIG derivation and the equivalence is easy obtained. Let G1 = (N.γ i ] → αi . Let A[. T. as long as the left recursion involves the whole spine. just a change in the interpretation of the derivation..γ r ]αr be the set of A-productions for which A is the leftmost symbol of the right hand side.. Let A[.γ 1 ]α1 |A[. P. S) be a LIG.γ i ] → β 1 |β 2 | · · · |β s be the remaining A−productions. Therefore. A[. An adaptation of the lemma 4.4 in [41] as follows also holds for LIGs and it would allow to transform left recursion into right recursion. P. A similar lemma for CFGs is lemma 4.γ i ] → β i B[. 6.. This is easy to prove. P. S) be the LIG formed by adding the variable B to N . Let G = (N.] such that 1 ≤ i ≤ s B[. The following lemma applies to productions that do not carry stack information. Then L(G) = L(G1 ). Lemma 11 Let G = (N. GILs contain languages which are proven not to be in the LIL set. I..γ 2 ]α2 | · · · |A[.γ i ] → αi B[. P 1..2.γ i ] → β i .. I.116 CHAPTER 6.. T.3 in [41]. However we show in the next section that such a claim does not seem to hold. the proper inclusion of LILs in GILs would be obtained: • For any LIG there is an equivalent LIG in push-Greibach Normal Formal. T.....]β 1 |β 2 | · · · |β r be the set of all B-productions (they do not aﬀect the stack). S) be a LIG. S) be obtained from G by deleting the production A → Bα2 from P and adding the productions A → β 1 α2 |β 2 α2 |β r α2 . Let A[. The proof of this lemma holds for the GIG case because there is no stack information aﬀected.

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

] [i] b [i. The problem is that they require the two directions of recursion (i.i] [i] [.14: LIGs not in push-GNF I Moreover some additional problems arise as in the following languages: {w1 w2 w1 w2 R |wi ∈ Σ∗ } {w1 w2 w2 w1 R |wi ∈ Σ∗ } which can be depicted by the following structures: push push push b1 b2 a1 push push push a2 b3 push a3 push push a1 a2 b1 b2 push push pop pop pop pop push a3 a3 a2 a1 pop b3 pop b3 b2 b1 pop pop pop b3 b 2 a3 a2 pop pop b1 a1 Figure 6. this alternative .e..] [i] [i.] c c d d b Figure 6..15: LIGs not in push-GNF II These languages do not seem to be obtainable with a LIG in push-GNF.. They are however generated by GIGs as shown in ﬁgure 6..i] d [i] b b [.] c c d CHAPTER 6. both right and left) for push productions.118 [.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. However. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [.

diﬀerent derivations . 6.6. We will allow the productions of a GIG to be annotated with ﬁnite strings in I ∪ I instead of single symbols. and others which are beyond the descriptive power of LIGs and TAGs. [48]. It is a standard change in PDAs (cf. Therefore. This follows from the ability of GIGs to capture dependencies through diﬀerent paths in the derivation. There has been some work compiling HPSGs into TAGs (cf. In this section. This does not change the power of the formalism.16: LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs should be considered in detail.3. We will introduce informally some slight modiﬁcations to the operations on the stacks performed ¯ by a GIG. 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. 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. Also the symbols will be interpreted relative to the elements in the top of the stack (as a Dyck set).2 were correlated to the use of the SLASH feature in GPSGs and HPSGs.3 GIGs and HPSGs We showed in the last section how GIGs can produce structural descriptions similar to those of LIGs. Those structural descriptions corresponding to ﬁgure 6. One of the motivations was the potential to improve the processing eﬃciency of HPSG. [39]) to allow to push/pop several symbols from the stack. [8]). Such compilation process allowed the identiﬁcation of signiﬁcant parts of HPSG grammars that were mildly context-sensitive. by performing HPSG derivations at compile time.

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]. 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. 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. an how the elements contained in the stack can be correlated to constituents or lexical items (terminal symbols) in a constituent recognition process. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS might be produced using the same production.120 CHAPTER 6. HEAD 1 SUBJ < > H SUBJ 2 1 HEAD SUBJ < 2 > Figure 6.18 shows an equivalent structural description corresponding to the GIG productions and derivation shown in the next example (which might correspond to an intransitive verb). Head-Subj-Schema Figure 6. according to what is on the top of the stack. The arrows indicate how the transmission of features is encoded in the leftmost derivation order.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. This is exempliﬁed with the productions X → x and X → x. obtaining very similar structural descriptions.

20.] y [v. corresponding to the deriva- .6..] XP [v. where the initial conﬁguration of the stack is assumed to be [n]: Example 28 (transitive verb) ... The following GIG productions generate the structural description corresponding to ﬁgure 6. 3 n > Figure 6.3.. 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 6.19: Head-Comps Schema tree representation Figure 6.] XP [v.] X x Figure 6..18: Head-Subject in GIG format #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ #yXP ⇒ n#Y XP ⇒ n#yX ⇒ v#yx Head-Comps-Schema HEAD COMP 1 < 2 HEAD 1 6 77 7 6 6 7 6 S 4 L | C 4SUBJ 2 55 7 6 7 6 COMPS 3 6 2 2 2 3337 7 6 HEAD 1 7 6 6 6 6 6 7777 6 6 HEAD DTR 4 S | L | 4SUBJ 2 5577 6D 6 77 6 4 COMPS union 4 .] Y [n.] 121 YP [n.19 shows the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Complement schema in HPSG. 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 ..21. GIGS AND HPSGS [.

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

6.21: SLASH in GIG format Example 30 (SLASH and Coordination2) . 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alonso Pardo. 13:570–581. n [60] Rohit J. [59] M. Berlin. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. [62] S. Kracht. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. pages 243–257. Chicago. RTA-99. 2000. Springer-Verlag. PhD thesis. LACL’98. 1996. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structure. Trento. [61] C. McNaughton. In Proceedings of Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Stanford CA. Stanford University. 1966. Michaelis and M. On context-free languages. Grenoble. Philadelphia. A. [56] P. Springer-Verlag. Strong Generative Capacity. 1999. 1994. pages [54] J. Sag. . PhD thesis. In Christian Retor´. 1999. IL. 1994.134 [53] R. An insertion into the chomsky hierarchy? 204–212. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Dept of CIS. 1998. USA. [55] J. Rambow. Niemann and F. Italy. Miller. CSLI Publications. LNCS 1631. Rajasekaran. 1999. 25. [57] G. pages 329–345. editor. Michaelis. Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. 1998. Interpretaci´n Tabular de Aut´matas para lenguajes de Adjunci´n de o o o ´ Arboles. University of Pennsylvania. Universidade da Coru˜a. e LACL’96: First International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. Pollard and I. [63] O. Otto. Tree-adjoining language parsing in o(n6 ) time. University of Chicago Press. [58] F.A. 1997. On the connections between rewriting and formal language theory. SIAM J. Parikh. of Computation. Otto. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery. In Rewriting Techniques and Applications: 10th International Conference. BIBLIOGRAPHY In Jewels are Forever. The church-rosser languages are the deterministic variants of the growing context-sensitive languages.

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful- Final Solutions
- Simple Type Inference for Higher-Order Stack-Oriented Languages
- Chapter 06. Other Automata Models
- dil1
- Automata Theory
- pda(1)
- CFG to PDA
- Pda
- StackADT1
- Expression Evaluation
- Evaluating Postfix Exp
- Stack Data Structure v10
- Infix Prefix Postfix
- Lecture 7
- Context Free Grammers
- Infix to postfix.pptx
- asd2_3
- Pushdown Automata
- 4 - 1 - 13. Equivalence of PDA's and CFG's (18 Min.)
- lec3
- MELJUN CORTES -- AUTOMATA THEORY LECTURE - 10
- In Fix
- CS101 06 Stacks
- 12arithmetic Expressions
- MELJUN CORTES Automata Theory 10
- Polish Notations
- Ghost in the Shellcode_ TI-1337 (Pwnable 100) » SkullSecurity
- Ss 10 Content
- Stacks and Applications
- 01. Stack
- 10.1.1.121.8248