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

A Dissertation

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

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

by Jos´ M. Casta˜o e n February, 2004

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Adam Jaﬀe, Dean of Arts and Sciences

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Comparison with TM. . 2. . . . . . . . . . . .2 GIGs examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. .2 Outline of the Thesis and Description of the . . . . . .1 Natural Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . .1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines . . . . . . . .1 trGIGS . . 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack . . . . . . .4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA . . 1. . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . .5. .1 Deterministic LR-2PDA . xiii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Left Restricted 2 Stack Push Down Automatas (LR-2PDAs) . . . . .5 Determinism in LR-2PDA .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ﬁnite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Global Index Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Semilinearity of GILs and the Constant Growth property 4. . . . . . . . . . . .2 Global Index Grammars . . . . . .1. . . . .1 GILs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . .1. . . . .2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 GILs and Dyck Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Examples of LR-2PDAs . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . 4.1 Automata with two Stacks . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Relations to other families of languages . . . .Contents vii Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures 1 Introduction 1. . 2. . . . . . . . . .4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. . . 1. . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Indexed Grammars and Linear Indexed Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . 4.1. . . 3. PDA and LR-2PDA . . . . 1. . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix xi xv 1 1 2 4 5 6 9 9 10 12 13 15 17 20 20 21 23 23 24 26 28 32 35 41 41 42 44 46 47 2 Two Stack Push Down Automata 2. . . . . . . .1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Our proposal . . . . . . . . 2. . .2 Closure Properties of GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Biology and the Language of DNA . . . .

. . 100 . . 79 . . . . . . . . . 7 Conclusions and Future Work 125 7. . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Parsing Schemata . . . . . . . 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs . 5. . . . . . 107 107 108 108 110 112 113 115 116 119 6 Applicability of GIGs 6. . .6. . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 . . . .3 Complexity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . .1. . . . . 6. . .1.1 Control Languages . . . . . . . . . . . .3 The Goto Operation. . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Earley Algorithm. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Derivation order and Normal Form . .4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: ﬁnal version . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . .4 Proof of the Correctness of the Algorithm . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . 52 . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . GILs. . . .5 Implementation . . 75 . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. 98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . .1 LIGs in push-Greibach Normal Form . . . . . 73 . .2 The Closure Operation. . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Set Inclusion between GIGs and LIGs . .1 Graph-structured Stacks . . . . . . .2. . . . .2 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. .1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs . . .6. . . . . . .2 Time and Space Complexity . . . . . 6. . .3.2. . . . . . . . .3 The Copy Language . . . 5. . 5. . . 126 xiv .1. . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . .1 LR items and viable preﬁxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . .6 LR parsing for GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Future Work .2. . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . 6. . 5. . . . . . .1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 GIGs and HPSGs . . 52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Global Index Grammars (GIGs) 6. . . .2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for 5. . . . .1. . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . 61 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . .3 Parsing Schemata for GIGs . . .5 Crossing dependencies . . . . . . . . 81 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . .4 Multiple dependencies . . . . . . . . . 73 . .4.2 The palindrome language . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .5 2. . . . . . . 63 i I-edges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Completer F . . . 100 Transition diagram for the PDA recognizing the set of valid preﬁxes. . . . . . . . . . 70 Completer E. . . . . . . . A non context-free structural description for the language wwR . . . . . . 60 Ambiguity on diﬀerent spines . . . . 57 A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . .24 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A PDA . . .7 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . .2 5. 69 Completer D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) A Turing Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 5. . . . . . . . 68 Completer C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6. . Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 A predict time graph . . . . . . last case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 5. . . . . . . . . . . . 62 i A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Completer B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Language relations . . . . . . . . . 60 Two alternative graph-structured stacks distinguished by position . . . . . . . . . 79 GIG invariant . . . . . . . . . . . 58 i Push and Pop moves on diﬀerent spines . . . . . .1 2. . . . . .2 6. . . . LR-2PDA . . . . 73 Earley CFG invariant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 5.18 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 5. . .13 5. . . . . . . . .23 5. . 52 Push and Pop moves on the same spine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA . . . . . 88 Set of States for Gwcw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 109 109 110 110 xv . . . . . . .20 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 A complete steps in the graph . . . .9 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2. . . . .10 5.19 5. . . . . . . . Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Completer A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sLR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 Two alternative graph-structured stacks . . . .5 5. . . . . . 72 Completer G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 5. . . . . . . . . 81 Path invariant . . . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 15 15 17 17 18 Two graph-structured stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 5. . . . . . . annotated with indices for the grammar Gwcw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 5. . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SLASH in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 6. . . LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF I . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . second case . .13 6. . . . . . .22 An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language . . . . . . . .17 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 6. . . . . . . . . A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Head-Comp in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 6. . . . . .7 6. . . . . . .18 6. . . .6. . . . . . . . . . .14 6. . . . . .11 6. . . . .8 6. . . . . .10 6. . . . . . . .21 6.19 6. . . .12 6. . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs. . . LIGs not in push-GNF II . 111 111 112 112 113 113 117 117 118 118 119 120 121 121 122 123 124 xvi . . . . . . . Head-Comps Schema tree representation . . GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . SLASH and coordination in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

These constructions are exempliﬁed as [26]:2 – reduplication. 47] on semi-linearity. 29]. [46. – crossed agreements. As a consequence those generalizations provide more expressive power but at a computational cost. multiple context free grammars [71]. additional levels of embeddedness. where a language of level k properly includes a language of level k − 1. leading to languages of the form {ww |w ∈ Σ∗ } – multiple agreements. {an bn cn dn | n ≥ 1}. 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.1 Natural Language Regarding natural languages (one of the seven cases mentioned above). 1. corresponding to languages of the form {an bn cn | n ≥ 1}. . In general. that can be modeled with GILs.2 CHAPTER 1. etc. following type of languages are also relevant to model molecular biology phenomena [70] there are other phenomena (e.g. and multi-push-down grammars [21]. We will focus in natural language problems from a language theoretic point of view. Georgian Case and Chinese numbers) might be considered 3 However to be beyond certain mildly context-sensitive formalisms. They form hierarchies of levels of languages. Within Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms we focus on Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Tree Adjoining Grammars (TAGs) which are weakly equivalent. The complexity of the recognition problem is dependent on the language level. 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. Examples of those related hierarchies are: Khabbaz’s [49]. INTRODUCTION Such models can be generalized and additional control levels. 23. 4 See for example. 86] and [55.1. in particular related to the so called Mildly-Context Sensitive formalisms. or additional stacks can be added.3 It has been claimed that a NL model must have the following properties:4 1 See 2 The for example [73. Weir’s [87]. We will exemplify this issue with some properties of natural language and we will consider some biology phenomena. among others. scrambling. there is increasing consensus1 on the necessity of formalisms more powerful than CFGs to account certain typical natural languages constructions.

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

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

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

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

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

There is a long and fruitful tradition that has used those formalisms for Natural Language modeling and processing. so the descriptive power of CFGs regarding by natural language phenomena is inherited by GIGs. Our conjecture is that it is. 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. Finally.2.8 CHAPTER 1. Other formalisms that might share structural similarities with GIGs could be Minimalist Grammars and Categorial Grammars. We discuss the relationship of LIGs with GILs in depth in section 6. GILs include CFLs by deﬁnition. The question still to be answered is whether the area with lines in the LILs and LCFR languages set is empty or not. and GILs can be represented as in ﬁgure 1. LCFRLs LILs CFLs ww anbncn ww + an(bncn ) + GILs Figure 1.1. We also show that GIGs can generate trees with dependent paths. INTRODUCTION equivalent. LILs/TALs.1: Language relations . we disscuss how some properties of HPSGs can be modeled with GIGs (presented in [19].

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

stn are stacks introduced above the current stack. In order to simulate these movements in a 2-PDA. The number of stacks is speciﬁed in each move.. st2 .. However transitions that push a symbol into the second auxiliary stack do not allow moves.. sb2 . they cannot be recovered (unless some more input is consumed). 3 We might restrict even more the operation of the auxiliary stack disallowing moves that pop symbols from the auxiliary Stack...3 These constraints force a left to right operation mode on the input in the LR-2PDA.g. “erases” the symbols as they are removed from the stack..3. Given that it is not possible to re-store them again in the auxiliary stack.. [83.g. and st1 . . and the LR-2-PDA is presented in section 2.. 2. st2 .. current state. M’.st1 . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA has to move from left to right and from right to left. . push/pop on current stack.. Alternatively.1.3 we deﬁne the LR-2PDA. Consequently it is possible to “use” the information stored in the auxiliary stack only once. TAGs). A more detailed comparison of TMs. a 2nd order PDA in the progression hierarchy presented in [86]. In the next two subsections we review some models that proposed 2-stack or nested stack automata. except that the push-down store may be a sequence of stacks. Its expressive power is beyond PDA (context free grammars) and possibly beyond EPDA (e. Moving back to the left. sb2 . PDAs. either reading or replacing symbols. sbm are a ﬁnite number of stacks introduced below the current stack.. the input must be consumed and it must be possible to transfer symbols from one stack to the other. In 2. stn ) where sb1 . is similar to a PDA. sbm . because once the input is consumed.10 CHAPTER 2. . Consequently this would produce a more restricted set of languages.. It is initiated as a PDA but may create new stacks above and below the current stack. Then a transition function looks like (from [45]): δ (input symbol. 13]). sb1 . ... the input might be initially stored in the second stack (e. it is not possible to write into the auxiliary stack. 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). . stack symbol)= (new state.1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines An EPDA.

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.2. 81. for instance.1: Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) 2 Stack automata (2-SA) were shown to be equivalent to EPDA [7. to recognize crossed dependencies as in the example depicted in the next ﬁgure: Figure 2.1. AUTOMATA WITH TWO STACKS 11 The possibility of swapping symbols from the top stack to embedded stacks produces the context sensitive power of L2 languages in Weir’s hierarchy. they use the additional stack in the same way as the embedded stacks are used in the EPDA. The possible moves for a 2-SA automaton are the following [7]: • Read a symbol from the input tape . so as to separate diﬀerent sub-stacks. 59].

GCSLs contain the non-context-free and non-semi-linear {a2 |n ≥ 0} [16] The copy language is not a GCSL {ww|w ∈ {a. Σ. b}∗ }. Wartena [85] shows the equivalence of the concatenation of one-turn multi-pushdown automata restricted with respect to reading (as in the 2-SA case). q 0 . the main stack • push a string onto the auxiliary stack. In [16] Buntrock and Otto’s Growing Context Sensitive Languages (GCSLs) are characterized by means of the Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata (sTPDA). TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA • push a string onto. b}∗ } belongs to CSL \ GCSLs. or pop a symbol from.12 CHAPTER 2. The reading/writing restriction is related to the requirement that the preceding stacks be empty. • 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). 15. 53. But this restriction is not related to conditions on the the main stack but to conditions on the input.2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata Recently there has been interest on Church-Rosser Languages. 2. where • Q is the ﬁnite set of states. GCSLs are a proper subclass of CSLs: The Gladkij language {w#wR #w | w ∈ {a. The recognition problem for growing context sensitive grammars is NP-complete ( [14]). The shrinking-TPDA. 58]. 16. is deﬁned as follows: Deﬁnition 1 a) A TPDA is a 7-tuple M = (Q. F ). and the alternative restriction with respect to writing. Growing Context Sensitive Languages (deﬁned by a syntactic restriction on context sensitive grammars) and the corresponding model of two pushdown automata (see [24. but {an bn cn |n ≥ 1} is a GCSL. • remove bottom of the stack symbols. δ. n . Γ. ⊥. The kind of automata we present implements a restriction on the writing conditions on the additional stack.1. The TPDA initializes the input in one of the stacks.

The restriction is implemented using a weight function over the automaton conﬁguration. b) then φ(puv) < φ(qab). • ⊥ ∈ Γ \ Σ is the bottom marker of pushdown store. otherwise it is equivalent to a TM. We use a standard notation similar to the one used in [77] or [41]. We can consider the automaton model we present in the next section as preserving a shrinking property that conditions the use of the additional stack: it has to consume input.2. the next symbol read and the top symbols of the stacks determine the next move of a LR-2PDA. 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. and the requirement that every move must be weight reducing [57].e. b ∈ Γ if (p. Either of these symbols may be . u. The current state. • Γ is the ﬁnite tape alphabet with Γ • q 0 ∈ Q is the initial state. LEFT RESTRICTED 2 STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATAS (LR-2PDAS) • Σ is the ﬁnite input alphabet. 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. a.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.. Part b) enables transitions that aﬀect the auxiliary stack if and only if an input symbol is consumed (i. 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. v) ∈ (δ. • F ⊆ Q is the set of ﬁnal (or accepting) states.e. if it is not ). 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. Part c) is a relaxation of the previous one and enables . only if they are equivalent to a PDA transition function. i.

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

aw. η). A clear example of maximum transversal and input storage is the language Lr = {wwR | w ∈ Σ∗ } which can be recognized by a PDA. then (q. Reads left to right only. state and stack contents. ⊥. w.3 Comparison with TM. Σ. ηβ) if δ(q. Σ. q 0 . that can be also used and reused at any time. γ 2 ) where q is a state w is a string of input symbols and γ 1 . δ. PDA AND LR-2PDA b. F ) is {w | (q 0 . Figure 2. w. ⊥. 2. a. ∗ is denoted by ∗ The language ac- cepted by a LR-2PDA M = (Q. It has the capacity of remembering a sequence of symbols and matching it with another equal length sequence. ζα. The input can be transversed as many times as desired. ζ. F ) is a LR-2PDA. from left to right. COMPARISON WITH TM. They specify the current input. ⊥)} for some p in F . but it cannot recognize Lc = {ww | w ∈ Σ∗ } which would require additional use of the storage capacity. O) M. γ 1 .2. PDA and LR-2PDA A Turing Machine: the input tape is also a storage tape.3. Writes left to right or same cell Independent operation: allows e-moves Moves to the left erasing. Read and Write one cell One head Figure 2.2: A Turing Machine A PDA: The input can be transversed only once. . Γ. ⊥. q 0 . The reﬂexive and transitive closure of M M (p. Z. Γ. If M = (Q. δ.3: A PDA . ⊥) (Acceptance by empty stacks) (p. plus it has an unlimited work-space. whatever remains at the right is forgotten). Oβ) contains (p. Zα. γ 2 are strings of stack symbols. w. There is a work space (storage data structure) that also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. ⊥. 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. An ID is a 4-tuple (q.

consequently what is being read cannot be stored in the main or the auxiliary stack if there is a transferral occurring. . A sLR-2PDA cannot recognize the copy language: if the auxiliary stack is used to store all the symbols of the input tape then it would be of no more use than storing all the symbols in the main stack: the symbols can only be transferred from the auxiliary stack to the main stack only if the input tape is being read. The corresponding machine is detailed below in the exsection 2. a LR-2PDA is not able to transverse a substring indeﬁnitely. This exempliﬁes how many times (and the directions in which) the same substring can be transversed. an LR-PDA can recognize the language L3 = {www | w ∈ Σ∗ }. . but it can store again in the second stack (the second copy). (above) . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA A LR-2PDA: The input can be transversed only once. u) = (q 3 . (q 3 . . ) = (q 1 . However. ) (transfer symbols from auxiliary to main stack) 3.16 CHAPTER 2. Transfer from one stack to the other is restricted. Consider the following transitions (where a is a symbol in Σ). the second storage can be written to only when consuming input. 1. a. The crucial fact is that transitions type c. if information from the ﬁrst ordered stack is transferred to the second auxiliary stack.4. whatever remains at the right is forgotten). In order to avoid the possibility of transferring symbols from one stack to the other indeﬁnitely. given the constraints imposed on LR-2PDAs. 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∗ }. au) (recognize the second copy using the symbols stored in the main stack. a. then the possibility of storing information from the input seen at this move is lost. While recognizing the second copy all the information stored about the ﬁrst copy is lost. a) = (q 2 . (q 1 . but unlike a TM. 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. . from left to right. There are two work- spaces which also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. . a. (q 2 . and store the symbols of the second copy back A loop back from state q 3 to state q 2 allows recognition of the language of any ﬁnite number of copies (example 2). a) (store the symbols of the ﬁrst copy) 2. a.

4. b. Moves to the left erasing. Dependent moving (erasing) Figure 2. Writes left to right or same cell Transfer NOT possible Dependent writing from 1. e}.4 Examples of LR-2PDAs The ﬁrst example is a sLR-2PDA. Example 1 (Multiple Agreements) .4: LR-2PDA are not allowed. Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing. Figure 2. Moves to the left erasing. Writes left to right or same cell Independent both operations. M 5 = ({q 0 . q 2 . However the language L = {wuw | u. Independent moving. q 3 }. Reads left to right only. Independent both operations. {x}. w ∈ Σ∗ and |w| ≤ |u|} is recognized by a sLR-2PDA. 17 Writes left to right or same cell Moves to the left erasing.2.5: sLR-2PDA 2. EXAMPLES OF LR-2PDAS Reads left to right only. δ. q 0 . Examples 2 and 3 are LR-2PDAs. ⊥. c. Transfer possible Dependent writing from 1. {a. q 3 ) where δ: . d. q 1 .

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

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

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

The construction of the LR(k) parsing tables would show whether the indexing mechanism for a given GIG is non-deterministic. (q. I ∈ Γ. a. i) = (q. 2. j) = (q. j) 2. I i ) and (q j . because they imply a non-deterministic choice. I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. whenever δ(q. (q. 1. nor with the fourth. . then δ(q. I) contain two elements = (q i . I j ) such that I i = I j . ) = (q. Z.2. (q. I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ. . Z j . Deﬁnition 5 A LR-2PDA has a deterministic indexing. a. for each q ∈ Q. Z. for no q ∈ Q. . We can regard to be an abbreviation for all the possible symbols in the top of the stack. in the following examples of transitions. Z. for each q ∈ Q and Z. Condition 2 prevents the choice of move for any equal 4-tuple. a. If the non-determinism is in the CFG backbone only we can guarantee that the recognition problem is in O(n3 ). whenever δ(q.5.2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack Even if a GIG grammar is non-deterministic. 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. then δ(q. b. ) is nonempty. Z. . . . 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. 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. Therefore. . A ∈ Σ and Z. Z i . Z. A. j) 4. a. a. . i) 3. and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q.5. or is a deterministic indexing LR-2PDA if and only if: 1. ) 2. I ∈ Γ. I ∈ Γ. Z. ) = (q. . I) is nonempty. 3. (q. the ﬁrst case is not compatible with the third. .

22 CHAPTER 2. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA .

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

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

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

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

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

C}. Example 9 (Copy Language) L(Gww ) = {ww |w ∈ {a. b}. S. S. P ) and P = . R → Rb | b ¯ j The derivation of the string abbabb: #S ⇒ i#aS ⇒ ji#abS ⇒ jji#abbS ⇒ ji#abbRb ⇒ i#abbRbb ⇒ #abbRabb ⇒ #abbabb Example 10 (Multiple Copies) L(Gwwn ) = {ww+ | w ∈ {a.2 GIGs examples We conjecture that the following languages can be deﬁned with a GIG and cannot be deﬁned using a trGIG.2. E}. b}. #. Example 11 (Crossing Dependencies) L(Gcr3 ) = {an bm cl dn em f l } Gcr3 = ({S. S → bS j 3. It is easy to see that by generalizing the same mechanism any ﬁnite number of crossing dependencies can be generated. D. 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. 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. we mentioned the diﬀerence between push and pop rules in GIGs. b}∗ } Gww = ({S. R. j. j}. R}. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5. Above. d. {a. A. #. j}. S → aS i 2. C. e. F. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS The derivation of the string aabbccbbcc shows ﬁve dependencies. S → R 4. k}. c. {a. {i. #. #S ⇒ #AR ⇒ #aAER ⇒ #aaER ⇒ i#aabR ⇒ ii#aabbL ⇒ ii#aabbOR ⇒ i#aabbcOER ⇒ #aabbccER ⇒ i#aabbccbRii#aabbccbbL ⇒ ii#aabbccbbC ⇒ i#aabbccbbcC ⇒ #aabbccbbcc 3. {a. b. This diﬀerence enables the use of left recursive pop rules so that the order of the derivation is a mirror image of the left-right order of the input string. B. {i. B. f }. S. b}∗ } Gwwn = ({S. L. {i. This is not possible in trGIGs because pop rules cannot be left recursive. P ) and P = 1.28 CHAPTER 3.

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

n ≥ 0.30 CHAPTER 3. We need to prove that ut1 wt2 y t3 z is in L(GMIX ) ( |uti wti y ti z| = n + 3). GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS language is indeed Lmix . S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #acb k j j i i S ⇒ j#b ⇒ #bac ¯ j ¯ j S ⇒ j#b ⇒ #bca S ⇒ i#b ⇒ #cba ¯ i ¯ i S ⇒ i#b ⇒ #cab Inductive Hypothesis: Assume for any string uwyz in Lmix then uwyz is in L(GMIX ). b s and c s due to the constraint imposed by the indexing mechanism. 1. 2. b. Where ¯ ¯ t1 t2 t3 is any string of length three in Lmix and t designates the terminals that introduce the indices ¯ in the derivation. 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. and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation. with the one proposed in 2. It can be seen that all the derivations allow only equal number of a s. n = 3: S ⇒ k#a ⇒ #abc k ¯ k ¯ k is clearly in the language. 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. c}∗ and |a|w = |b|w = |c|w ≥ 0}. First direction: L(Gmix ) is in Lmix = {w|w ∈ {a. Proof . y = a1 y c1 z. Second direction: Lmix is in L(Gmix ) Basis n = 0. S ⇒ δ#uS ⇒ kδ#uaS ⇒ δ#uaSbScS ⇒ δ #uawbScS But at this point the strings b and c might block a possible derivation. This blocking eﬀect can be illustrated by the following hypothetical situation: suppose uwyz might be composed by u = u b1 . w = w c2 and y = a2 y b2 trigger the following derivation (perhaps the only one). 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 reach the following point: ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ . where ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ |uwyz| = n.

e.: baScacbS where the two non terminal S expand the ti n−1 triples. and t are members of the pairs that remove indices in the derivation. because the grammar is highly ambiguous. 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 . We need to account whether there is a possible conﬁguration such that a conﬂict of indices arises. there is no guarantee that the necessary sequence of indices are removed.2.tj . GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 3. We prove now that such a blocking eﬀect in the indexing is not possible: there are always alternative derivations.. Case 2. Therefore.. This in turn can be easily derived by: δ#S ⇒ jδ#bS ⇒ δ#baScS ⇒ in−1 δ#baan−1 cS ⇒ kin−1 δ#baan−1 caS ⇒ in−1 δ#baan−1 cacbS ⇒ δ#baan−1 cacb(cb)n−1 Claim 4 For any sequence of two possible conﬂicting indices there is always at least a derivation in Gmix .ti )n ] And this problem is reduced to: ¯¯¯¯ tj ti S tj tj ti ti S i. Claim 3 For any sequence of possibly conﬂicting indices the conﬂicting indices can be reduced to two conﬂicting indices in a derivation of the grammar Gmix .3. 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. 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 . Case 1.... clearly S ⇒ i#ti S ⇒ #ti Stj Stk S and the complements of ti . 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..(ti . In other words. there are three diﬀerent indices (ti = tj = tk ): ti utj vtk . tj are reduced to the case of two conﬂicting indices. removing the index j. . We show now that this situation is impossible and that therefore Lmix is in L(GMIX ). tk ..

Let us assume the ti triple corresponds to a(bc) and tj triple corresponds to b(ca) therefore it is: uai vbj wbi xcj zci yaj (or uai vbj ci xcj zbi yaj .e.) 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 . 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. The tests were performed on the strings of length 6 and 9. x. 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. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Assume the possible empty strings u. w.32 CHAPTER 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. etc. if indices are introduced. The well-known Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger theorem [22]. This assumption is made based on the previous two claims. z and y do not introduce possible blocking indices (i. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ 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. shows that any CFG is u . 3. they are also removed in the derivation of the substring). given we are considering just two possible conﬂicting indices.

GILs include languages that are not context free. Dyck languages can also provide a representation of GILs. This stack of indices. Proof Let L = L(G). GILS AND DYCK LANGUAGES 33 the result of the “combination” of a Regular Language with a Dyck Language. φ(¯) = a φ(i) = . where G = (N T. as we said. GILs can be represented using a natural extension of Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger u theorem (we will follow the notation used in [39]). β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new ¯ production p1 ∈ P 1. . u For each GIL L. P 1) such that P1 is given according to the following conditions.3. if p = A → αaβ then p1 = A1 → α1 a¯β 1 a 2.3. a CFL and a homomorphism φ such that L = φ(Dr ∩CF L). Let Dr be the semi-Dyck set over Σ0 . T and I are pairwise disjoint and |T ∪ I| = r ¯ ¯ The alphabet for the semi-Dyck set will be Σ0 = (T ∪ I) ∪ (T ∪ I). R is a regular set and φ is a homomorphism [39]. 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. and α. such that α1 and β 1 ∈ (N ∪ T T )∗ as follows: 1. 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. For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T. where D is a semi-Dyck set. which results in a PDA. #. Theorem 1 (Chomsky-Sch¨ tzenberger for GILs) . there is an integer r. S. Σ0 . As we have seen above. Deﬁne a CFG grammar G1 = (N. I. The analogy in the automaton model is the combination of a Finite State Automaton with a stack. Deﬁne φ as the homomorphism from Σ0 ∗ into T ∗ determined by φ(a) = a. L = φ(Dr ∩ R). S 1 . φ(¯ = i) if a ∈ T . if i ∈ I. P ). has the power to compute the Dyck language of the vocabulary of indices relative to their derivation order. Push and pop moves of the stack have the power to compute a Dyck language using the stack symbols. i ∈ I. T. This “combination” is formally deﬁned in the CFG case as follows: each context-free language L is of the form.

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

j}. S → bS j 3. S → S a ¯ i 7. a. 2. S → S ¯ a ia¯ 5. S → b¯ bjS 7. then there exists a LR-2PDA M such that L= L(M). {a. P ) and P = 1. j}. and we construct GwwD from Gww as follows: GwwD = ({S. S → 3. b}∪I = {i. b}.4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA In this section we show the equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA. j} ¯ b. {a. ¯ j. a. b. ¯ i.4. S → S b¯¯ bj 1. S → a¯iS a 6. S }. S → S b ¯ j ¯ Let D4 be the semi-Dyck set deﬁned over Σ0 = {a. S → 4. {i. b}∗ } Given Gww = ({S. S →S a¯¯ ai 3. S. ¯ S. S }. S → S b ¯ j 6. i. This is on our view a consequence of the fact that GIGs are a natural extension of CFGs. 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 . Σ = T = {a. ¯ = Σ∪Σ. S → S a ¯ i 5.3. S →S b¯¯ bj 4. b. ¯ 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. #. P ) and P = ¯ b. j} CF Lww = L(GwwD ). ¯ i. Theorem 2 If L is a GIL. S → aS i 2. The proof is an extension of the equivalence proof between CFGs and PDAs. #. i. . ¯ j. 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 .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We modify the construction of L1 in the proof of Theorem 1. Σ.. 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. as follows: 1. am . removing the illegal derivations. Proof Given a GIG G = (N. 4.46 CHAPTER 4. if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iα ¯ i 4. ¯n . #... By the Parikh theorem [60] the Parikh map of the CFL L(G1). 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). if p = A → α then p1 = A → α 2.4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs This section and the remainder of this chapter will present some exploratory ideas rather than established results. From S3 we obtain S 0 the semilinear set corresponding to ψ(L(G)). Let S 2 be the semilinear set {(a1 .. in other words.. ψ(L(G1)) is an eﬀectively computable semi-linear set S 1 . in . S. . if p = A → α then p1 = A → iα i 3. S. Σ1 . ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new production p1 ∈ P 1. and α. i ∈ I. Dr and L1 are semilinear by the Parikh theorem (L1 and Dr are CFLs). ip .. This follows from Theorem 1. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES The proof exploits the properties of Theorem 1: every GIL L = φ(Dr ∩ L1) such that L1 is a CFL. P ) such that ¯ Σ1 is (Σ ∪ I ∪ I) and P 1 is given according to the following conditions. note that S 2 is a subset of S 1 . For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T. I. ik . removing the pairs of ik and ¯k coordinates. We can consider pumping lemmas for diﬀerent families of languages as specifying the following facts about them: . ¯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. ¯p )|aj . P 1) Deﬁne a CFG grammar G1 = (N. The intersection of S 1 and S 2 is a computable semilinear set S 3 according to [30]. i Corollary 6 The emptiness problem is decidable for GILs.

4.4. PUMPING LEMMAS AND GILS

47

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

4.4.1

GILs, ﬁnite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs

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

48

CHAPTER 4. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES

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

4.5

Derivation order and Normal Form

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

¯ i

2. A → aA

i

3. A → a

i ¯ j ¯ j

4. B → bB

j

5. B → b

j

7. C → c

¯ i

8. D → dD

9.D → d

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

4.5. DERIVATION ORDER AND NORMAL FORM

49

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

j k

2. A → aA

i

3. A → a

i

4. B → bB

j

6. C → cC | c 10.E → e

¯ i

7. D → dD

¯ j

8.D → d

¯ j

9.E → eE

¯ i

11. F → f F

¯ k

12. F → f

¯ k

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

j

2. A → aA

i k

3. A → aB

i

4. B → bB

j

6. C → cCf | cM f 10.E → De

¯ i

M → DE

7. D → dD

¯ j

8.D → d

¯ j

9.E → Ee

¯ i

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

2 2 2 2

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

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

50 1. S → aS

i

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

j

3. S → S 8. A → a

¯ i

4. S → S A 9. B → b

¯ j

5. S → S B

6. S → A

7. S → B

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

i j ¯ j ¯ i

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

i j ¯ j ¯ i

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

1 $.2 j.2 j..52 i.. Because at this point we use nodes of unambiguous length.0 j. P ) be a CFG.1 j. Algorithm 1 (Earley Recognition for GFGs) .3 i..2 i.ai .2. currentnode connects only to nodes of current length-1. n ≥ 0. Retrieves all the nodes that are connected by an edge from the currentnode.oldnode).3 Figure 5.3 CHAPTER 5.2 5. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS i. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string.. T.3 i. pj ] is inserted in the set of states S i if α corresponds to the recognition of the substring aj . Pop(curretnode).1 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm Earley Algorithm.0 j. Push(newnode. Earley items are inserted in sets of states. 0] 2 For 0 ≤ i ≤ n do: Process each item s ∈ S1i in order performing one of the following: a) Predictor: (top-down prediction closure) .1 j. These items are used to represent intermediate steps in the recognition process.1 $. An item [A → α • β.an with n ≥ 0 any integer i such that 0 ≤ i ≤ n is a position in w. Therefore. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. Earley’s main data structures are states or “items”. 5. S. given a string w = a1 a2 .1: Two graph-structured stacks The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [S → • S$. pj ]. Let G = (N. Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the size of the indexing vocabulary. Earley’s parsing algorithm [27] computes a leftmost derivation using a combination of top-down prediction and bottom-up recognition.2 i. which are composed of a ”dotted” rule and a starting position: [A → α • β. There are as many sets as positions in the input string.

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

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

[]. StackOperation].1.1.il].[B].0) 2 Adding to chart: <27413> item(S.1.[#.c].3. {a.[].3.[b].[i.4. G2 = ({S.2.[#. initialposition.d].B.S.ir].[].[i. Example 18 (Trace of aabbccdd) L(G2 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}.0.0.1.[].3) 18.[].[B]. {i}.ir].0) 3 Adding to chart: <23470> item(S.ir].il].1) 9 Adding to chart: <10640> item(S.il].(#.(i.1) Adding to stack: <22732> item((i.c].1. Each item is represented as follows: item(LeftSymbol.e]. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 55 shows the recognition of the string aabbccdd with the grammar G2 transformed into a trGIG.4) .[#.[i. OrderCounter.2).[i.B. where P is: S → aSd.[i.e].0.[].0.[]. #.[B.1.e]. Adding to chart: <23851> item(B.3.3.2.[S.[a].c].d].2) 13.d].3.S.3).2) Adding to stack: <22863> item((i.3.[#. c.2) 11.1) 8 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.[b].ir].il].[#.1.Adding to chart: <27540> item(S.[#.[B].[i.0) Adding to stack: <22605> item((i.2.1.1.0.2.3) 16 Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.c].[b.2.[i.[b.c].3. Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.[]. [Stacksymbol.(i.Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.2)]) 12 Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.2.0)) 4 Adding to chart: <10771> item(S. d}.ir].[i.e].[].0.ir]. Predotlist.S.[b.4. Adding to chart: <26897> item(B.0.2.1) 6.c].[].2) 10.Adding to chart: <27671> item(S.2. ﬁnalposition) The stack operation is represented as follows: “il” is a push rule of the stack index “i” and “ir” is a pop rule.0.[a.2.[a.2. S).[b.d].[S.B. Adding to chart: <27798> item(B.2. P.1.4.1.Adding to chart: <23724> item(S.[].ir].1.2) 14.[i.[b].2. b.1) 5.d].1)) 7 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.3) 15.[a]. Postdotlist.3) 17.[c].1.ir].[].0.il].1. StackCounter. i S→B B → bBc ¯ i B → bc ¯ i 1 Adding to chart: <10898> item(<start>.c].0.c].0.2.2.[i.Adding to chart: <23599> item(S.3.3.1. B}.[a.[B.0.1).[b.ir].0.[b.5.2.[#.[S].[i.[].

[#.a]. S → aS i 2.2) aaS ⇒ (j . the corresponding productions of the grammar Gww repeated below and the string aaba 1. 3.[#.[#.7) 26. j .2) aaR⇒ (i.2. Adding to chart: <10625> item(S. 6. Adding to chart: <10754> item(S. 3] ∈ S 3 : ¯ j add [(#.1.B.[S].4) 20. Adding to chart: <23342> item(S.1. S → bS j 3. 0).2.1.0.0.1) aS ⇒ (i.[#.5) 21.4.[#. R → a • .il]. the following complete operation would be performed : Given [(#.[]. In other words.e].0.1) aS ⇒ (i.[]. Adding to chart: <23085> item(B.e].il]. the completer operation may jump up two steps and complete the “R” introduced after step 3.ir].[#.[c].0.[b]. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Adding to chart: <22956> item(B.0.[].0.2) aaS ⇒(i.S.?) aaba i i ¯ i ¯ j 1 2 3 4 However. S → • R.8) yes The following example shows why some bookkeeping of the order of the derivation is required in Earley items.ir].2.2)aabR[b]⇒ i i j ¯ j ¯ i 1 2 3 4 5 (i.3) aabS ⇒(j .ir].0.2.4. Adding to chart: <10982> item(<start>.8) 28.[d.[d]. 2.il].b].3.ir].0. S → R • . instead of the one introduced at step 5.[].[#. 0).il].1)aabR[a][b]⇒(#.[d]. 3).[#.[c].0)aaba[a][b] ¯ i 6 After recognized this substring. In the following example the square brackets represent substrings to be recognized. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5. 2]. R → Rb | b ¯ j The following derivation is not possible (in particular step 4). b}∗ }.3.3) aabR⇒(i. the following sequences can be generated using Earley’s Algorithm if no ordering constraint is enforced at the Completer Operation.[B]. S → bS • .a].56 19 CHAPTER 5.[S.a]. Adding to chart: <23215> item(S.[#.6) 25.6) 24. 0). Adding to chart: <27783> item(B. This bookkeeping is performed here by the order parameter.[].1).0) S ⇒ (x. Consider the language Lww = {ww |w ∈ {a.0.b].b].[B.1.a].[c. (#.0. S → R 4. 3] ∈ S 4 and [(j.2.3.0.0.0. Adding to chart: <10883> item(S.0.S.3. 3] to S 4 Then the following are sequentially added to S 4 : a) [(#. aaRa ⇒ (?.5) 22.2.[c. 3.[].[d.7) 27.6) 23.[#.0) S ⇒ (i. The pairs in parenthesis represent the nodes of the graph-structured stack: (#.[S. Adding to chart: <27654> item(B.

. 2). 4. In other words. R → bc ¯ i 6. 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. 2]. j}. there is no way to control the correct derivation given no information on the pop moves has been stored. S → R 7. 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. R}.5.2. {a. At this point. 0] i 5. S → aSc j 3. The predict-complete ambiguity In this case. #. S → aS • .2. push push pop pop Figure 5. S. and at completer cases. R → • ∗ • b c. This is depicted in the following ﬁgure 5. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM b) [(#. 0). S → aSd i 2. S → aS • . 4. the complete operation of the previous algorithm does not specify the correct constraints. R → bd ¯ j 4. completed-stack ambiguity and stack-position ambiguity. 1. at some predict steps. i 57 c) [(#. 2). 0. The exact prediction path that led to the current conﬁguration has to be transversed back in the complete steps. c. 2] and b d. The ambiguity arises in the following conﬁguration S ⇒ aabR which would lead to the following items: [(#. 1]. R → bRc ¯ i 5. {i. It cannot handle cases of what we call predict-complete ambiguity. 0). d}.2: Push and Pop moves on the same spine The following grammar produces alternative derivations which illustrate this issue.3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs The Algorithm presented in the preceding section does not specify all the necessary constraints. Example 19 Gamb4 = ({S.2. R → [(#.

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

We will discuss it again below.4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: ﬁnal version Revised Operations on the stack We will use the following notation. We say ∆− ∈ I. This operation is the equivalent of the previous Pop function with a stack ¯ that keeps record of the nodes in I. These operations enable the computation of the Dyck language over the graph-structured stack. precednode).oldactivnode.e. Note that the position is determined by the corresponding position of the terminal introduced by the push production.5. and pi > pj . p) such that δ is an index and p > 0 (p s are integers). Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the position of the current node. pj ). Therefore. pi ). PushC(currentnode. Creates a complete edge from currentnode to precednode if necessary.2. A node can connect to any node at a preceding position.10. oldnode. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. i. initialnode). ∆j = (δ j . p) such ¯ ¯ that δ ∈ I. On the other hand ∆− will designate a push node which has been removed by ∆− . . Therefore ∆+ will designate a node corresponding to a pop move which ¯ “removes” ∆+ .initialnode). A node ∆+ designates a node corresponding to a push move on the stack. We will use a slightly more complicated version that takes into account completed nodes and the initial nodes introduced by the Push operation. for a node at position pi there might be pi−1 edges to other nodes. p < 0. the path function obtains the nodes in I which can be active. It is a pair (δ. Push(newnode. It is a pair (δ. The modiﬁcations are ¯ necessary due to the fact that the graph-structured stack contains both nodes in I and I. as is speciﬁed in algorithm 5 and depicted in ﬁgure 5.2. A node ∆− designates a node corresponding to a pop move in the stack. The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. It retrieves all the nodes in I that are connected by an edge to the push node that currentnode reduces. We say ∆i > ∆j if ∆i = (δ i . It ﬁnds the preceding unreduced push node after one or more reductions have been performed. Path(currentnode). It also creates an i-edge from initialnode to newnode. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 61 5. We say ∆+ ∈ I. after a reduce operation has been done. These edges will be represented then by triples: (newnode. We will use also the complement notation to designate the ¯ corresponding complements.

2 j.3 j. −1 j. −3 i. and ∆ − 1 .0 j. named edgeC. −3 j. Path(∆ − 1 ): CHAPTER 5. −1 j.2 i. Completed nodes are designated by a particular kind of edge. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . Path obtains the closest non reduced nodes ¯ ¯ in I. 2 j.62 Algorithm 3 . The returned set of nodes represent points in the derivation at which to continue performing reductions at complete time. ∆ − 3 ) add Path2(∆ − 3 ) to valueset return valueset S S i. −2 S S S S S Figure 5.1 $. While Path performs them at predict time. −2 j.2 i.10: Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes i The following operation operates on the reverse direction of the Path function.3 i. The portion of the graph that is already reduced corresponds to completed nodeswhich already matched their respective complements.−3 i. −2 j.1 $.3 i.0 i. Path2 returns a set of nodes in I accessible from another node in I.1 j. Both Path and Path2 perform Dyck language reductions on the graph structured stack.−3 i. −2 i. . ∆ + 2 ∈ I 1 2 3 4 5 6 valueset = {} ¯ For edge((∆ − 1.3 j. ∆ + 2 ) add ∆ + 2 to valueset ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 . ∆ − 3 ∈ I. Path2 performs them at complete time.1 j.

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

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

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

pr )) and δ 2 = δ 3 and p3 = −p2 and push( (δ 2 . I(δ 2 . δ 1 ∈ I and δ 2 = δ add every [Ac(δ 1 . A → • γ. (δ 0 . (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and δ 2 ∈ I: add every [Ac(δ 2 . j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P and δ 1 . p2 ). ¯ such that: δ 2 = δ 1 and p2 = −p1 (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and ¯ δ 2 ∈ I = δ¯ : 1 add every [Ac(δ 2 . (δ 3 . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS If [Ac(δ 1 . A → • γ. p2 ) ∈ path(δ 1 . p2 ). p1 ). δ 2 ∈ I: δ2 add every [Ac(δ 2 . (δ 0 . j] to S i + 1 Completer Operations The diﬀerent subcases of Completer operations are motivated by the contents of the Active Node ∆Ac and the Initial Node ∆In in the triggering completed item (item in S i ) and also by the contents of the Initial Node ∆I0 of the combination target item (item in S j ). (δ 1 . p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 .66 1.1 Predictor Push CHAPTER 5. p1 ). p1 ). ∆In .b Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I ¯ If [Ac(δ 1 . A → α • aβ. pr )) 1. I(δ 2 . I(δ 0 . p3 ) ∈ path((δ 1 . B → α • Aβ. δ r . i] to S i ¯ such that: (δ 3 . i] to S i such that: p2 = i + 1. p1 ). and push( (δ 2 . (δ 1 .2. j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [∆A . I(δ 0 . I(δ 2 . p2 ).3 Predictor e-move If [Ac(δ 1 . p2 ). p1 ). (δ 1 . A → • γ. p0 ). Scanner If [∆Ac . p3 ). p0 )) ¯ 1. p0 ) ) 1. j] ∈ S i δ= and (A → γ) ∈ P such that δ ¯ or δ = [δ 1 ] or (δ 2 . p0 ). p1 ). p2 ). (δ 0 . B → α • Aβ. j] ∈ S i .a Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I If [Ac(δ 1 . A → • γ. I(δ 0 . p0 ).2. p1 ). I(cl(δ 0 ). (δ 0 . B → α • Aβ. p2 ). B → α • Aβ. p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . p0 ). p1 ). i] to S i and push( (δ 2 . ∆In . p2 ). j] ∈ S i . p2 ). I(δ 0 . All the completer operations . p0 ). p1 ). p2 ). p1 ). i] to S i 2. A → αa • β. p2 ). (δ r . p2 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

speciﬁes the properties of information of the graph-structured stack encoded in the item. ν. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 2. π ∈ C and νz µy πρ ∈ C for some ρ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . δ ∈ DI iﬀ z µy π = epsilon.21: GIG invariant We will use Parsing Schemata to prove this proposition. y ∈ I ∪ I iﬀ z = z .4. # γ .2 Parsing Schemata We use Parsing Schemata.21 depicts the properties of the invariant. Condition d.4.α η β µ . Condition b. α. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ 81 3. µπ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . It will also help to understand the implementation of the algorithm we detail in the appendix.. speciﬁes the constraints related to the position correlation with the strings in the generated language. a framework that allows high-level speciﬁcation and analysis of parsing algorithms [75. 76].. p0 ≤ i + 1 and p1 ≤ j. 5.. y = y . The remaining conditions specify the properties of the string νz µy π relative to the control language C. Figure 5.. speciﬁes that the item has a transmitted node from the graph if the empty string was generated in the control language. i+1 aj ν z µ yπ Figure 5.5. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . z... ∗ S ν a 1 . z. which naturally embed the invariant properties of the Earley algorithm for CFGs. Condition c. ¯ b. #νz µy π Such that: a. Condition a. else δ = ¯ ¯ ¯ c. d. speciﬁes the properties for the diﬀerent types of productions that generated the current item.aj . ∈ cl(δ ). y π A z ai a . δ = z iﬀ δ ∈ I ∪ I. This framework enables the analysis of relations between diﬀerent parsing .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

then an item ξ = [Ac(y. ¯ 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 . It states that all the derivations in the grammar will have the corresponding item in the set of states.5. #ν 2.1 summarizes the conditions speciﬁed by the Completer Operations. p1 ). I(z. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . p1 ) I(z. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM cl(x)µ y π = Therefore the result is νzµuπ 93 The following table 5. Completeness) . p3 ) Ac(y.(x < y) +/ TARGET ITEM Ac1(u. If 1. #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. −) #νzµuπ +:u Table 5. . CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM I1(x. Result x µy π #νz µu π(x µ (y π #νz µu π(x µ y )π . p0 ). α. p2 ) +/+/+ –+ + – + -x=u ¯ cl(xµyπ ) = –: y=x ¯ +/.2 and Proposition 6. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ.4. S. For each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 · · · η k 1 ≤ i ≤ k. A → α • β. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ ¯ 3.1: Conditions on the completer Deductions Lemma 8 (Second direction. This lemma is equivalent to the following claim in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5. p0 ) cl(z µu π) = +/+/+/+/+ +/-. i] is inserted in the Set S j .

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

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

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

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

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. It is also more complex because GIL derivation requires leftmost derivation for the stack operations.000 ≈ 28. ≈ 500 ≈ 2.000 ≈ 9. This approach can be extended to a Generalized LR parsing approach. ≈ 300 ≈ 1. [2]).736 50. the technique we present here converts an LR GIG into a deterministic LR-2PDA according to the deﬁnition presented in Chapter 2.500 ≈ 2.ai Aβ ⇒ δγ j a1 .. 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 .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. IN ). Therefore the set of items has to encode the corresponding top-down prediction that aﬀects the stack of indices. We will refer to the connections between Earley parsing and LR parsing to clarify this presentation. [41].100 MCopy L..000 ≈6. ≈ 100 ≈ 400 ≈ 700 ≈ 1. [2]).500 ≈2. 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.100 ≈5.1 LR items and viable preﬁxes We assume the reader has knowledge of LR parsing techniques (cf. The sets that deﬁne the states in GIG LR parsing are composed by a pair of sets (IT. 5. An item A → β 1 • β 2 is valid for a viable preﬁx αβ 1 if there is a derivation S ⇒ αAw ⇒ αβ 1 β 2 w. if multiple values are allowed in the parsing table (cf. The similarities of Earley Parsing and LR parsing are made explicit in those transformations.976 Mix L. ∗ ∗ rm rm ∗ . We use this notion of viable preﬁxes to describe the computation of the rm rm ∗ main stack in a LR-2PDA. Both [75] and [3] describe transformations of Earley Parsing Schemata to LR Parsing Schemata.000 Copy L. In the GIG case.6.000 20.98 Length 6 9/10 12 15/16 18 CHAPTER 5.625 104.. [80])..aj β 2 β. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS n4 1296 10. We say a GIG item index pair [ δ. The set of preﬁxes of right sentential forms that can appear on the stack of a shift-reduce parser are called viable preﬁxes in context free LR-parsing.800 5.000 ≈ 16.

every item in IT is added to closure(IT ).6. ¯ Note that the two conditions of the Closure operation rule out the possible index operations δ and [δ] when the right-hand side of the production starts with a non-terminal. S → aS i 2. then closure(IT ) is the set of items constructed from IT by the two rules: 1. Example 21 L(Gwcw ) = {wcw |w ∈ {a. j}. the goto function and the parsing table. ) = {B → • γ |B → γ is a production } (a NFA transition) In the GIG case the transitions should be as follows. S. b}∗ }. For the GIG algorithm the set of items and possible index values cannot be determined only by the Closure operation. ι) = {(B → • γ.The transitions of this NFA are of the following form: δ(A → α • Bβ. The Closure operation is equivalent to the Predict function in Earley parsing (cf. P ) and P is: 1. R → Rb ¯ j The set of states for the grammar Gwcw should encode the possible conﬁgurations of the stack of indices as follows: . LR PARSING FOR GILS 99 5. R → Ra ¯ i 5.6. For CFG parsing (cf. They are also determined by the Goto operation. 2. b}. If A → α • Bβ is in closure(IT ) and (i) B → γ is a production where δ is in I ∪ { }. S → cR 6. If IT is a set of items for a grammar G. #. R}. The following example uses a grammar for the language Lwcw to depict the construction of the set of items. R → [#] 4.5. {i.2 The Closure Operation. . S → bS j 3. 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. Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to the closure of IT . if the index operation is for instance ¯: ι δ(A → α • Bβ.[3]). [41]) the Closure operation is equivalent to obtaining the set of states of a NFA that recognizes the viable preﬁxes. ) |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. Gwcw = ({S. However in Earley’s algorithm this computation is done in run-time while in LR parsing it is precompiled in the LR states. Such productions are considered in case 2 of the Goto function. Initially.

X). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS I1 : i S → a•S i i I2 : j S → b•S j i I3 : I4 : I5 : I6 : I 10 : {i. In the GIG case. 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. is deﬁned to be the closure of the set of all items [A → αX • β] such that [A → α • Xβ] is in IT . We will say an index i is in IN if (i. j.3 The Goto Operation. #} # # 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. s) where i is an index symbol and s is a state deﬁned by a set of items closure. X. ι) = (I j . The CF Goto function is a DFA transition function where IT is in the state set and X is in the vocabulary. if I is the set of items that are valid for some viable preﬁx-index pairs (γ.6. s) is in IN .ιj ) in other words.100 I0 : # S → •S S → • aS i CHAPTER 5.23: Set of States for Gwcw In the same way that the dot implies that some input symbols have been consumed.ι). 5. The CF function goto(IT. is the set of items that are valid of the viable preﬁx-index pairs (γX. Intuitively. if µ µ I is the set of items that are valid for some viable preﬁx γ. We will describe the Goto function adding the possibility of computing the possible stack values of the PDA for each state. the Goto function in the GIG case is a PDA and the set of viable preﬁxes with associated indices is a context-free language. 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. X. then goto(I. IN ) is deﬁned to be the pair (IT 2 . then goto(I. where IT is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol. #} {i.IN 2 ) where either 1 or 2 applies: . The operation goto(IT. #} {i. The set I6 requires that the stack be empty. j. X) is the set of items that are valid for the viable preﬁx γX. j. ιj ).

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

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

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

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

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

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 .

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

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

c.b.e. In such structure the dependencies are introduced in the leftmost derivation order.a] [d.] Figure 6.] a b c d d c b a Figure 6. ¯ Gadj = ({AP. {a. 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 . the structure of ﬁgure 6.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b.. {i. (i. [.b. #.1. Such an structure can be obtained using a GIG (and of course an LIG).a] [c. A}. c}. N P. The English adjective constructions that Gazdar uses to motivate the LIG derivation are generated by the following GIG grammar. (i.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. AP.a] [c.b.4 at the left.3: Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR However GIGs generate a similar structural description as depicted in ﬁgure 6. in productions that are not in Greibach Normal Form).a] [c.b.b..e. b..b.c. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 109 [.a] [a] [. A..a] [a] [. But the exact mirror image of that structure.4: Example 22 (Comparative Construction) .a] [d. The corresponding structural description is shown in ﬁgure 6.a] [c. j}.] [a] [b.a] [b.a] [b.6.2: A non context-free structural description for the language wwR unbounded dependencies.

] a A a b [.] A [b...c] a b A c [c] b Figure 6. could .d] a [b.a] [c.b.b..] NP NP c NP [..] a b c d a b c d [b.c] NP [d.d] [c.c..c. 6.a] [a.b.3..d] [c.] AP AP AP [.a] [d.1. as in the LIG case. The structural description at the left can be generated by a GIG. but not the one at the right.6 at the left.d] [d] [.a] [a] [.b.3 The Copy Language Gazdar presents the following two possible LIG structural descriptions for the copy language (depicted in ﬁgure 6. However.. [.] A NP b [c] [a] [b. the introduction of indices is dependent on the presence of lexical information and its transmission is not carried through a top-down spine.d] b [d] c d Figure 6. The arrows show the leftmost derivation order that is required by the operations on the stack..a] [a] [b. a similar one can be obtained using the same strategy as we used with the comparative construction.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 6.110 CHAPTER 6.a] c A A [a.5: Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language Gazdar further argues that the following tree structure. On the other hand..c.] [b.] NP AP [.c..b.] [a] a b c d [c.a] [c.] [.a] c d d a [b. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [.c] [c.b.a] [b.c. shown in ﬁgure 6.b.a] [.5).b.

c.7: A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language .a] [a] [] [d.a] [a] a [] b Figure 6.6 (right).a] [b.a] [d.c.b.7.c.b.c. corresponding to the grammar shown in example 10.a] [d. but they can generate the one presented in the ﬁgure 6.b.a] d c b [c.a] [c.b. where the arrows depict the leftmost derivation order.a] [b. [] [a] [b.a] [a] [a] [] [b.b.a] [a] [d.c.a] c d d [c.c.a] [b.a] [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.1.b.a] [c.a] a b c d [c.d] [a.c.d] [c.a] [c. but can be generated by an IG.b.c.b.d] [a. GIGs can also produce similar structural descriptions for the language of multiple copies (the language {ww+ | w ∈ Σ∗ } as shown in ﬁgure 6.d] [d] [d.b.c.a] b c d ε a Figure 6.b.6 at the left either.a] ε a d [b.b. Such structure cannot be generated by a LIG.d] [] [d.b.b.a] c [a] b [] a [d.d] [b.b.c.a] [c.b.c.b.b.6: An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language GIGs cannot produce the structural description of ﬁgure 6.a] [b.a] [a] a b a c [b.c.d] b c [d] d [b. [d] [c.a] [d.c.a] [a.d] [b.c.6.d] a b c d [c.b.

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

LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 113 S → aSf |R i R→F L|F |L F → b F c |b c ¯ i L → d L e |d e ¯ i The derivation of aabcdef f : #S ⇒ i#aSf ⇒ ii#aaSf f ⇒ ii#aaRf f ⇒ ii#aaF Lf f ⇒ i#aabcLf f ⇒ #aabcdef f [..1.11: GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies 6..] [i] a [.] c [i.5 Crossing dependencies Crossing dependencies in LIGs and TAGs have the same structural description as the copy language..i] [i.] [. GIGs can produce crossing dependencies with some alternative structures as depicted in the following structures.] d [i] a c d b d e Figure 6.i] f [.] d d ε b Figure 6.] [i] a f [i. .6.i] [i] a [i.i] a c c [..1.10: GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies [..i] a [i] [i] [i. The ﬁrst example is generated by the grammars Gcr presented in Chapter 3 and repeated here.] [i.i] [i.] [.] c [i] a [i.i] b [i] [i] c [...i] a b b c [i] [.i] [i...

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

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

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. Then L(G) = L(G1 ).γ i ] → αi B[. as long as the left recursion involves the whole spine.4 in [41] as follows also holds for LIGs and it would allow to transform left recursion into right recursion. Let A[.. B[.116 CHAPTER 6.] → A[. S) be a LIG. Let A[.γ r ]αr be the set of A-productions for which A is the leftmost symbol of the right hand side.γ 1 ]α1 |A[.. A similar lemma for CFGs is lemma 4.] such that 1 ≤ i ≤ r .. the proper inclusion of LILs in GILs would be obtained: • For any LIG there is an equivalent LIG in push-Greibach Normal Formal. An adaptation of the lemma 4.] → [. Let A[. Let G = (N..γ i ] → β i B[.γ 2 ]α2 | · · · |A[. P. Lemma 10 Deﬁne an A − production to be a production with variable A on the left. T.] → B[]α be a production in P and B[. Let G1 = (N. P.. The proof of this lemma holds for the GIG case because there is no stack information aﬀected.] such that 1 ≤ i ≤ s B[. S) be a LIG.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. 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 .3 in [41].. T. P 1... However we show in the next section that such a claim does not seem to hold.. This is easy to prove. Therefore. just a change in the interpretation of the derivation.. T. I.]β 1 |β 2 | · · · |β r be the set of all B-productions (they do not aﬀect the stack). if a lemma such as the following statement could be proved.. GILs contain languages which are proven not to be in the LIL set. 6.2. The following lemma applies to productions that do not carry stack information. I ∪ {γ }. T. Lemma 11 Let G = (N. S) be the LIG formed by adding the variable B to N . P..γ i ] → αi . index γ to I and replacing the A−productions by the productions: A[.. I.γ i ] → β i . I. A[.. from a LIG derivation to a GIG derivation and the equivalence is easy obtained.γ i ] → β 1 |β 2 | · · · |β s be the remaining A−productions.

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

They are however generated by GIGs as shown in ﬁgure 6.] c c d d b Figure 6. The problem is that they require the two directions of recursion (i.i] d [i] b b [.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 6.118 [.15: LIGs not in push-GNF II These languages do not seem to be obtainable with a LIG in push-GNF.] [i] b [i. this alternative .] [i] [i.] c c d CHAPTER 6. However...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. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [.i] [i] [.e... both right and left) for push productions.

There has been some work compiling HPSGs into TAGs (cf. This follows from the ability of GIGs to capture dependencies through diﬀerent paths in the derivation.16: LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs should be considered in detail. [8]). This does not change the power of the formalism. diﬀerent derivations . 6. 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 6.3 GIGs and HPSGs We showed in the last section how GIGs can produce structural descriptions similar to those of LIGs. [39]) to allow to push/pop several symbols from the stack. 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. and others which are beyond the descriptive power of LIGs and TAGs. In this section. Such compilation process allowed the identiﬁcation of signiﬁcant parts of HPSG grammars that were mildly context-sensitive. One of the motivations was the potential to improve the processing eﬃciency of HPSG. [48]. We will introduce informally some slight modiﬁcations to the operations on the stacks performed ¯ by a GIG. It is a standard change in PDAs (cf. Those structural descriptions corresponding to ﬁgure 6. by performing HPSG derivations at compile time. Also the symbols will be interpreted relative to the elements in the top of the stack (as a Dyck set).6.3.2 were correlated to the use of the SLASH feature in GPSGs and HPSGs. We will allow the productions of a GIG to be annotated with ﬁnite strings in I ∪ I instead of single symbols. Therefore.

This is exempliﬁed with the productions X → x and X → x. obtaining very similar structural descriptions. HEAD 1 SUBJ < > H SUBJ 2 1 HEAD SUBJ < 2 > Figure 6. The arrows indicate how the transmission of features is encoded in the leftmost derivation order. Example 27 (intransitive verb) XP → Y P XP XP → X YP →Y X→x nv ¯ Y →y n . Head-Subj-Schema Figure 6. an how the elements contained in the stack can be correlated to constituents or lexical items (terminal symbols) in a constituent recognition process.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 6.120 CHAPTER 6. according to what is on the top of the stack. We will ignore many details and try give an rough idea on how the transmission of features can be carried out from the lexical items by the GIG stack.18 shows an equivalent structural description corresponding to the GIG productions and derivation shown in the next example (which might correspond to an intransitive verb). in particular in the ﬁrst three cases where nv ¯ [n]v diﬀerent actions are taken (the actions are explained in the parenthesis) : nnδ#wXβ ⇒ vnδ#wxβ (pop n and push v) nv ¯ n¯δ#wXβ ⇒ δ#wxβ v nv ¯ (pop n and v ) vnδ#wXβ ⇒ v¯ vnδ#wxβ (push n and v) nδ#wXβ ⇒ ¯ n ¯ nv ¯ [n]v vnδ#wxβ ( check and push) We exemplify how GIGs can generate similar structural descriptions as HPSGs do in a very oversimpliﬁed and abstract way.17 depicts the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Subject Schema in HPSG [61]. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS might be produced using the same production.

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 .. 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..] XP [v.] Y [n.21.] 121 YP [n..] XP [v.6. where the initial conﬁguration of the stack is assumed to be [n]: Example 28 (transitive verb) ...19: Head-Comps Schema tree representation Figure 6.20. 3 n > Figure 6.] X x Figure 6..3. The following GIG productions generate the structural description corresponding to ﬁgure 6. GIGS AND HPSGS [.] y [v. corresponding to the deriva- .19 shows the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Complement schema in HPSG.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 .

We show the contents of the stack when each lexical item is introduced in the derivation. Example 29 (SLASH in GIG format) . XP → Y P XP CP → Y P CP X → know nv ¯¯ n XP → X CP X → hates nv n ¯ ¯ nv¯ ¯ v XP → X XP CP → X → claims Y P → Kim|Sandy|Dana|we A derivation of ‘Kim we know Sandy claims Dana hates’: #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ n#Kim XP ⇒ n#Kim Y P XP ⇒ nn#Kim we XP ⇒ nn#Kim we X XP ⇒ v n#Kim we know XP ⇒ ¯ v n#Kim we know Y P XP ⇒ ¯ n¯n#Kim we know Sandy XP ⇒ v n¯n#Kim we know Sandy X XP ⇒ v v n#Kim we know Sandy claims XP ⇒ ¯ v n#Kim we know Sandy claims Y P XP ⇒ ¯ n¯n#Kim we know Sandy claims Dana XP ⇒ v #Kim we know Sandy claims Dana hates Finally the last example and ﬁgure 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS XP [ v ] X [n v] [n v] CP [ v ] Y [v] CP x y ε Figure 6. ∗ .122 [n] CHAPTER 6.20: Head-Comp in GIG format tion given in example 29.22 shows how coordination combined with SLASH can be encoded by a GIG.

21: SLASH in GIG format Example 30 (SLASH and Coordination2) .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 6.6. XP → Y P XP CP → Y P CP X → talk to nv n ¯ ¯ XP → X CP CP → C → and X → did nv ¯¯ XP → X XP X → visit [n¯n]c v CXP → XP CXP Y P → W ho|you n CXP → C XP A derivation of ‘Who did you visit and talk to’: #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ n#W ho XP ⇒ n#W ho Y P XP ⇒ v n#W ho did XP ⇒ ¯ v n#W ho did Y P XP ⇒ n¯n#W ho did you CXP ⇒ ¯ v n¯n#W ho did you XP CXP ⇒ v cn¯n#W ho did you visit CXP ⇒ v cn¯n#W ho did you visit C XP ⇒ v n¯n#W ho did you visit and XP ⇒ v ∗ .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[55] J. McNaughton. Sag. An insertion into the chomsky hierarchy? 204–212. Stanford CA. Springer-Verlag. Rajasekaran. 1994. [56] P. [61] C. USA. 1996.134 [53] R. Grenoble. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery. In Rewriting Techniques and Applications: 10th International Conference. 13:570–581. pages 243–257. Kracht. Parikh. University of Chicago Press. Tree-adjoining language parsing in o(n6 ) time. Universidade da Coru˜a. [57] G. Formal and Computational Aspects of Natural Language Syntax. 1998. pages [54] J. Otto. Otto. Italy. 25. In Proceedings of Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. On the connections between rewriting and formal language theory. [63] O. Strong Generative Capacity. 1999. Berlin. Derivational minimalism is mildly context-sensitive. Springer-Verlag. SIAM J. BIBLIOGRAPHY In Jewels are Forever. On context-free languages. pages 329–345. Pollard and I. RTA-99. 1999. 1997. [62] S. Trento. LACL’98. 1994. CSLI Publications. Alonso Pardo. In Christian Retor´. In Foundations of Software Science and Computation Structure. 2000. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. n [60] Rohit J. University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. Michaelis and M. Interpretaci´n Tabular de Aut´matas para lenguajes de Adjunci´n de o o o ´ Arboles. Niemann and F. Stanford University. e LACL’96: First International Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics. 1998.A. The church-rosser languages are the deterministic variants of the growing context-sensitive languages. Miller. 1966. . Michaelis. PhD thesis. IL. 1999. Semilinearity as a syntactic invariant. PhD thesis. editor. [58] F. [59] M. A. Rambow. Dept of CIS. Chicago. LNCS 1631. of Computation.

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title

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

Are you sure?

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

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

Get the full title to continue

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