## Are you sure?

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

A Dissertation

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

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

by Jos´ M. Casta˜o e n February, 2004

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Adam Jaﬀe, Dean of Arts and Sciences

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

.

Then characterization and representation theorems as well as closure properties are also presented. 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. we discuss in Chapter 6 the relevance of Global Index Languages for natural language phenomena. as well as the structural descriptions generated by the corresponding grammars. and at the same time has an “extra” context-sensitive descriptive power (e. In order to model coordination. This work takes these ideas as its goal. semi-linearity. An Earley type algorithm to solve the recognition problem is discussed in Chapter 5. it might be necessary to deal with the multiple copies language: {ww+ |w ∈ Σ∗ } [29]. named Global Index Languages (GILs). At the same time there is a special concern to preserve the ‘nice’ properties of context-free languages: for instance. This thesis presents an abstract family of languages. as well as an LR-parsing algorithm for the deterministic version of GILs. Massachusetts by Jos´ M. Finally. xi . One of those problems concerns natural language phenomena. One of the hard problems in natural language is coordination. Waltham. 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.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. 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. Casta˜o e n Context-free grammars (CFGs) is perhaps the best understood and most applicable part of formal language theory. Mildly context-sensitive languages and grammars emerged as a paradigm capable of modeling the requirements of natural languages. Innumerable formalisms have been proposed to extend the power of context-free grammars.

.

. . . . 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 Deterministic LR-2PDA . .2 LR-2PDA with deterministic auxiliary stack . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 GIGs examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Automata with two Stacks . . . . . . . . . . .1 Indexed Grammars and Linear Indexed Grammars 3. . .3 Our proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii . . . . . 2. . . . . 3. . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2 Global Index Grammars . . . . . . . 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Comparison with TM. . . . .2 Shrinking Two Pushdown Automata . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . PDA and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . .2 Biology and the Language of DNA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . .5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Outline of the Thesis and Description of the . . . . . . . . . . 4 Global Index Languages Properties 4. .1 trGIGS . . . . . . . . . . .5. . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs . . . . . . . .1 Natural Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Relations to other families of languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . 4. . . . . . . . . . 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . 3 Global Index Grammars 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ﬁnite turn CFGs and Ultralinear GILs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Semilinearity of GILs and the Constant Growth property 4. . .2. . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . .4 Examples of LR-2PDAs . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . .5 Determinism in LR-2PDA . .1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . .1 GILs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Closure Properties of GILs . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Left Restricted 2 Stack Push Down Automatas (LR-2PDAs) . . . . . . . . . 4. .Contents vii Acknowledgments Abstract List of Figures 1 Introduction 1. . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . .3 GILs and Dyck Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.

. . . . 126 xiv . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Control Languages . . . . . . . .3. . . . . . . . . . . .5 Implementation . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 First approach to an Earley Algorithm for 5. . . . . . 75 . . . . . . . . . .2. . . .2. . . . . . .3 GIGs and HPSGs . . . . . . . . 5. 5. . 100 . . . GILs. . . 57 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Earley Algorithm.6 LR parsing for GILs . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 107 108 108 110 112 113 115 116 119 6 Applicability of GIGs 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Complexity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 51 . . . . . 5. . . 7 Conclusions and Future Work 125 7. . . . . . . . . . .4. . 81 . . .3 Parsing Schemata for GIGs . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Time and Space Complexity . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . 61 . . . . . 52 . . . . . . 5.2 The Closure Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . 5. . .1 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Linear Indexed Grammars (LIGs) and Global Index Grammars (GIGs) 6.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . 52 . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Graph-structured Stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 .1 Control of the derivation in LIGs and GIGs . . . . . .3 The Goto Operation. .2 Set Inclusion between GIGs and LIGs . . . . . . 5. . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . .3. 48 5 Recognition and Parsing of GILs 5. . . . . . . . . . .5 Crossing dependencies . . . . . .4 Proof of the Correctness of the Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Parsing Schemata . . . . . . 6.3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs . . .1.4 Multiple dependencies .1. . . . . . . .1 LIGs in push-Greibach Normal Form . . . . . . 98 . . . . . . . . .4. . . .2. . . . . . . . . 98 . . . . 5. . . 5. . . . . . .3 The Copy Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . 80 . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 The palindrome language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. . . . . . 83 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . .1 Overview . . . . . 73 . . . . . . . . . . .5 Derivation order and Normal Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm . . . . . . . . . 79 . . .6.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. . . . 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .1 LR items and viable preﬁxes . . . . .4. . . . . . . .4 Earley Algorithm for GIGs: ﬁnal version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 5. . . . . . 102 LIGs: multiple spines (left) and GIGs: leftmost derivation . . . . . . . . 8 11 15 15 17 17 18 Two graph-structured stacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Path invariant . 59 Two alternative graph-structured stacks . . . . . .24 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Completer E. . . . . . . . . . . 100 Transition diagram for the PDA recognizing the set of valid preﬁxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sLR-2PDA . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Language relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR . . . . .22 5. . . . . 60 Ambiguity on diﬀerent spines . 58 i Push and Pop moves on diﬀerent spines . . 72 Completer G . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . 58 A predict time graph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .List of Figures 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Two alternative graph-structured stacks distinguished by position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23 5. . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 5. . . . . . . . . . 63 i I-edges . .5 2. . . . . . . .18 5.4 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 A complete steps in the graph . . . . .1 5. 68 Completer B . . . 64 Completer A . . .2 5. . . . . . . . . .13 5. . . .10 5. . . 68 Completer C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 5. . . . . . . . . . .4 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 GIG invariant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . .17 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A PDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Paths and reductions in a graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A non context-free structural description for the language wwR .3 5. 57 A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . . . . . . . . .6 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 109 109 110 110 xv . . . . . 88 Set of States for Gwcw . . . .9 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple agreement in an sLR-2PDA . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Earley CFG invariant . . . . . . . . . . .4 6. 69 Completer D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . annotated with indices for the grammar Gwcw . . . . . . . . . . 71 Completer F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Push and Pop moves on the same spine . . .19 5. . . . . . .1 2. 62 i A graph structured stack with i and ¯ nodes . . last case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) A Turing Machine . . . . . . . .8 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18 6. . . . . . . Head-Subject in GIG format . . . . . . .6. . . . . . . . . . Head-Subject Schema . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 6. . . . . . . . . LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . 111 111 112 112 113 113 117 117 118 118 119 120 121 121 122 123 124 xvi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 6.14 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 6.13 6.17 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .19 6. . . . . . . . . . .8 6. . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies . . . . . . .22 An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language .6 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF I . . . . . Head-Comps Schema tree representation . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II . . .15 6. . . . . . . SLASH and coordination in GIG format . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 6. . . . . . . SLASH in GIG format . . . . second case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 6. . Head-Comp in GIG format . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 6. .10 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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. u ¯ . Some of those formalisms are: Minimalist grammars [78. He shows that the language of nucleic acids is not regular. 1.4 CHAPTER 1. Contextual Grammars [52. and m the number of terms in the productions. 38. Those problems which are beyond context free are: Tandem Repeats (multiple copies). 10. Tree Description Grammars [47] are other such examples. nor deterministic nor linear. 54]. 68] proposes a grammar model to capture the language of DNA. recombination. Direct Repeats (the copy language). Range Concatenative Grammars [34. 69]). mutation and rearrangements. Contextual Languages do not properly include context-free languages.2 Biology and the Language of DNA Recently. 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.1. 87]. 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. However. conformation of macromolecules and the computational analysis of sequence data are problems which have been approached from such a perspective. or ordering) the recognition problem is in O(n3 ·2 k −1 ) [86. Multivalued Linear Indexed Grammars [63]. 66] is another formalism with some mildly context sensitive characteristics. Searls [70. Gene regulation. There are other formalisms related to mildly context-sensitive languages that are not characterized by a hierarchy of grammar levels. For LMGs the complexity of the recognition problem is O(|G|m(+p)n1 +m+2p ) where p is the arity of the predicates. In this case the complexity of the recognition problem is a bound polynomial: O(n6 ) space and O(n9 ) time [36]. Pseudoknots (crossing dependencies) represented as: Lk = {uv¯R v R }. and the related Literal Movement Grammars (LMGs). gene structure and expression. that it is ambiguous and that it is not context-free. 12]. 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).

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

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

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

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

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

sb2 .3. is similar to a PDA. 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). . TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA has to move from left to right and from right to left. Consequently this would produce a more restricted set of languages. except that the push-down store may be a sequence of stacks. Consequently it is possible to “use” the information stored in the auxiliary stack only once. The number of stacks is speciﬁed in each move. . Its expressive power is beyond PDA (context free grammars) and possibly beyond EPDA (e.... “erases” the symbols as they are removed from the stack. stn are stacks introduced above the current stack.. 2. sb2 . Given that it is not possible to re-store them again in the auxiliary stack.1. it is not possible to write into the auxiliary stack. M’. st2 ..10 CHAPTER 2.g. push/pop on current stack. either reading or replacing symbols. sbm .. In 2.. current state. because once the input is consumed. [83.3 These constraints force a left to right operation mode on the input in the LR-2PDA..3 we deﬁne the LR-2PDA. Moving back to the left. In the next two subsections we review some models that proposed 2-stack or nested stack automata.. 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.. In order to simulate these movements in a 2-PDA.. and the LR-2-PDA is presented in section 2. However transitions that push a symbol into the second auxiliary stack do not allow moves. It is initiated as a PDA but may create new stacks above and below the current stack.. 13]). . st2 .. .. Then a transition function looks like (from [45]): δ (input symbol. the input must be consumed and it must be possible to transfer symbols from one stack to the other. a 2nd order PDA in the progression hierarchy presented in [86]. and st1 . A more detailed comparison of TMs. sb1 . the input might be initially stored in the second stack (e. . TAGs).st1 . PDAs.g. stn ) where sb1 . Alternatively. stack symbol)= (new state.1 EPDA and equivalent 2 Stack Machines An EPDA. sbm are a ﬁnite number of stacks introduced below the current stack.

1: Dutch Crossed Dependencies (Joshi & Schabes 97) 2 Stack automata (2-SA) were shown to be equivalent to EPDA [7. 59]. AUTOMATA WITH TWO STACKS 11 The possibility of swapping symbols from the top stack to embedded stacks produces the context sensitive power of L2 languages in Weir’s hierarchy. so as to separate diﬀerent sub-stacks. to recognize crossed dependencies as in the example depicted in the next ﬁgure: Figure 2.2. they use the additional stack in the same way as the embedded stacks are used in the EPDA. Symbols written in the second stack can be accessed only after the preceding stack is empty. for instance. They also require the use of a symbol for the bottom of the stack.1. 81. The possible moves for a 2-SA automaton are the following [7]: • Read a symbol from the input tape . It allows the NPDA.

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

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

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

ζ. Z. whatever remains at the right is forgotten). F ) is a LR-2PDA. Γ. then (q. ⊥. A clear example of maximum transversal and input storage is the language Lr = {wwR | w ∈ Σ∗ } which can be recognized by a PDA. Σ. ζα. q 0 . γ 1 . ⊥)} for some p in F . ∗ is denoted by ∗ The language ac- cepted by a LR-2PDA M = (Q. O) M. γ 2 ) where q is a state w is a string of input symbols and γ 1 . .2: A Turing Machine A PDA: The input can be transversed only once. q 0 . γ 2 are strings of stack symbols.2.3 Comparison with TM. An ID is a 4-tuple (q. w. aw. η). w. but it cannot recognize Lc = {ww | w ∈ Σ∗ } which would require additional use of the storage capacity. The input can be transversed as many times as desired. plus it has an unlimited work-space. ⊥. 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. Read and Write one cell One head Figure 2. PDA AND LR-2PDA b. state and stack contents. PDA and LR-2PDA A Turing Machine: the input tape is also a storage tape. Figure 2. δ. 2. ηβ) if δ(q. Zα. Writes left to right or same cell Independent operation: allows e-moves Moves to the left erasing. It has the capacity of remembering a sequence of symbols and matching it with another equal length sequence. COMPARISON WITH TM. that can be also used and reused at any time.3.3: A PDA . a. Oβ) contains (p. from left to right. ⊥) (Acceptance by empty stacks) (p. Σ. δ. ⊥. If M = (Q. There is a work space (storage data structure) that also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left. Γ. Reads left to right only. w. The reﬂexive and transitive closure of M M (p. They specify the current input. ⊥. F ) is {w | (q 0 .

a. ) = (q 1 . . (above) . but unlike a TM. a. Transfer from one stack to the other is restricted. . 1. (q 3 . 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. but it can store again in the second stack (the second copy). 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. (q 1 . The crucial fact is that transitions type c. However. There are two work- spaces which also can be transversed only once (as soon there is a move to the left.4. ) (transfer symbols from auxiliary to main stack) 3. (q 2 . from left to right.16 CHAPTER 2. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA A LR-2PDA: The input can be transversed only once. . whatever remains at the right is forgotten). a. then the possibility of storing information from the input seen at this move is lost. Consider the following transitions (where a is a symbol in Σ). an LR-PDA can recognize the language L3 = {www | w ∈ Σ∗ }. . given the constraints imposed on LR-2PDAs. a) = (q 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. In order to avoid the possibility of transferring symbols from one stack to the other indeﬁnitely. au) (recognize the second copy using the symbols stored in the main stack. The corresponding machine is detailed below in the exsection 2. The following languages which can be recognized by an LR-2PDA are examples of a maximum use of the storage of the input: L2ra = {wwR wR w | w ∈ Σ∗ } and L2rb = {wwR wwR | w ∈ Σ∗ }. if information from the ﬁrst ordered stack is transferred to the second auxiliary stack. While recognizing the second copy all the information stored about the ﬁrst copy is lost. consequently what is being read cannot be stored in the main or the auxiliary stack if there is a transferral occurring. 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. u) = (q 3 . the second storage can be written to only when consuming input.

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

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

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

c.20 CHAPTER 2. y. q 1 . . d. TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA Example 3 (Crossed dependencies) M cr3 = ({q 0 . δ(q 2 . I) contain more than one element. z}. xx)} 3. . δ(q 1 . . y) = {(q 1 . and a ∈ Σ ∪ { } does δ(q.1 Deterministic LR-2PDA Deﬁnition 4 A LR-2PDA is deterministic iﬀ: 1. δ(q 3 . for each q ∈ Q and Z. 3. A. whenever δ(q. Z. q 0 . f }. δ(q 2 . ⊥. a. zz)} 7.5. x) = {(q 1 . then δ(q. ⊥. ⊥. ⊥) = {(q 3 . q 2 . d. . y. δ. a. for each q ∈ Q. y. q 3 ) where δ: 1. )} L(M cr3 = {a b c d e f | n. . ⊥. I) is empty for all a ∈ Σ. I ∈ Γ. whenever δ(q. ⊥) = {(q 1 . . f. c. Deterministic GILs are recognized in linear time as we mentioned in the introduction. ⊥)} 15. δ(q 1 . y) = {(q 1 . zz.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. ⊥. yy. z) = {(q 1 . ⊥. xy. I) is nonempty. I ∈ Γ. ⊥)} 14. x⊥)} 2. 2. ⊥. ) is nonempty. z) = {(q 2 . )} 13. δ(q 1 . Therefore understanding the deterministic LR-2PDA is crucial for obtaining a deterministic LR parser for GILs deﬁned in chapter 6. Z. z. z. y) = {(q 1 . x. δ(q 1 . . y. . Z. 2]. δ(q 3 . b. x. z) = {(q 1 . q 3 }. e. m. . A. b. Z. Z. δ(q 2 . a. c. z⊥. for no q ∈ Q. I ∈ Γ. zy)} 6. {x. ⊥. a. ⊥. yy)} 12. δ(q 3 . . z. The corresponding deﬁnition of a deterministic LR-2PDA is as follows: 2. )} 11. Z. x) = {(q 1 . d. δ(q 1 . y) = {(q 1 . δ(q 0 . {a. ⊥. x) = {(q 1 . yx)} 4. δ(q 2 . ⊥)} 5. ⊥) = {(q 3 . ⊥) = {(q 3 . yz. l ≥ 1} n m l n m l 9. e. b. then δ(q. ⊥)} 2. δ(q 1 . )} 10. ⊥. . ⊥. ⊥. )} 8. A ∈ Σ and Z. ⊥) = {(q 3 . ⊥. I) is empty for all I ∈ Γ. δ(q 2 .

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

TWO STACK PUSH DOWN AUTOMATA .22 CHAPTER 2.

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

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

g.]α [. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS 25 of indices dependent on lexical information..T ) and 6) P is a ﬁnite set of productions.. I.. An additional constraint imposed on GIGs is strict leftmost derivation whenever indices are introduced or removed by the derivation.1 or context free ) xδ#βAγ ⇒ xδ#βX 1 . x in I. A ∈ N .]A → [.X k γ) (production type a. in a linguistic sense. It also makes explicit that the operations are associated to the computation of a Dyck language (using such notation as used in e.2 A → α [y] or or or or A→α [.X k γ Using a diﬀerent notation: δ#βAγ ⇒ δ#βX 1 .. The constraint on push rules is a crucial property of GIGs. 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. Pop rules do not require a terminal at all.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...1 A → α a. x ∈ I) then: δ#βAγ ⇒ δ#βX 1 ..]A → [.. [39]).N . T. Derivations in a GIG are similar to those in a CFG except that it is possible to modify a string of indices. This string of indices is not associated with variables.. which are strings in I ∗ #(N ∪ T )∗ as follows. y ∈ {I ∪ #}.X k γ (production type a. w be in T ∗ and X i in (N ∪ T ). 1.1 where x ∈ I. If A → X 1 . T. δ be in I ∗ .X k is a production of type a.]α (epsilon rules or context free (CF) rules ) (epsilon rules or CF with constraints) (push rules or opening parenthesis) (pop rules or closing parenthesis) b. The notation at the right is intended to be more similar to the notation used in IGs and LIGs.. β ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ and a ∈ T . α. having the following form.. Deﬁnition 6 A GIG is a 6-tuple G = (N.e.. Let β and γ be in (N ∪ T )∗ . A → a β x c.]A → [x.3. without it GIGs would be equivalent to a Turing Machine.. µ = µ or µ = [x]. S. so we can consider them global. #. and allows the kind of recognition algorithm we propose in Chapter 5.2.. We deﬁne the derives relation ⇒ on sentential forms. 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. P ) where N. (i.]a β [x. . In the next subsection we present an even more restricted type of GIG that requires both push and pop rules in Greibach Normal Form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc. if indices are introduced. GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS Assume the possible empty strings u. Formally: S ⇒ #uS ⇒ #uwS ⇒ #uwxS ⇒ #uwxzS ⇒ #uwxzy Therefore for the following combination: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ti utj wti xti z tj y tj : the following derivation is possible. 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 . z and y do not introduce possible blocking indices (i. The well-known Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger theorem [22]. they are also removed in the derivation of the substring). 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. given we are considering just two possible conﬂicting indices. ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ S ⇒ i#uti S ⇒ #uti S ti S ti S ⇒ j#uti vtj ti S ti S ⇒ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ∗ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ j#uti vtj ti xti S ⇒ #uti vtj ti xti S tj S tj ⇒ #uti vtj ti xti z tj y tj Similar alternatives are possible for the remaining combinations: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti v ti wtj xti z tj y tj ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wtj xti z tj y ti ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wti xtj z tj y ti ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti v ti wtj xtj z ti y tj ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wtj xti z ti y tj ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ uti vtj wti xtj z ti y tj ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ ∗ However the last one requires some additional explanation.e. x.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.) 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 . shows that any CFG is u . 3. w. This assumption is made based on the previous two claims. The tests were performed on the strings of length 6 and 9.

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

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

b}∗ } Given Gww = ({S. S → bS j 3. EQUIVALENCE OF GIGS AND LR-2PDA #S ⇒ #yA ⇒ #ya If z ∈ Dr so is za¯a¯ and if φ(z) = y then φ(za¯a¯) = yaa a a a a Case (B) If: S 1 ⇒ u A1 ⇒ u ia¯B 1 ⇒ u ia¯zC 1 ⇒ u ia¯z¯ a then a a a ia¯ #S ⇒ #yA ⇒ i#yaB ⇒ i#uayC ⇒ #uaya i k n−1 k n−1 n−1 35 If u . ¯ = Σ∪Σ. S → 4. j}. ¯ S. S → S b ¯ j ¯ Let D4 be the semi-Dyck set deﬁned over Σ0 = {a. S → S ¯ a ia¯ 5.4. b}∪I = {i. This is on our view a consequence of the fact that GIGs are a natural extension of CFGs. Theorem 2 If L is a GIL. S →S a¯¯ ai 3. S →S b¯¯ bj 4. S }. S }. ¯ i We exemplify how the Chomsky-Sch¨tzenberger equivalence of GIGs can be obtained constructu ing the grammar for the language L1: Example 13 () L(Gww ) = {ww |w ∈ {a. S → S a ¯ i 5. S → b¯ bjS 7. 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 . ¯ j. j} ¯ b. S → a¯iS a 6. S → aS i 2. b. j} CF Lww = L(GwwD ). Σ = T = {a. then there exists a LR-2PDA M such that L= L(M). #. {a. P ) and P = 1. b. S → 3. a. S → S b ¯ j 6. and we construct GwwD from Gww as follows: GwwD = ({S. The proof is an extension of the equivalence proof between CFGs and PDAs.4 Equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA In this section we show the equivalence of GIGs and LR-2PDA. S. ¯ i. ¯ i. i. ¯ j. S → S b¯¯ bj 1. S → S a ¯ i 7. i. P ) and P = ¯ b. j}. {i. a. 2. #. . b}.3. {a.

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

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

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

. q m +1. B 1 B 2 . given the only type of rules/moves applicable are 1 and 2 (in this case where δ = [⊥]). B 1 B 2 . y. then either 1. γ k ) for any k ≥ 1.. ay. A.. .. (q i . y m . ⊥.y m−1 [q n−1 B n−1 q n ] ⇒ γ k #ay 1 y 2 . γ i+1 ) then γ i #[q i B i q i+1 ] ⇒ γ i+1 #y i ∗ (q 1 . In other words. . EQUIVALENCE OF GIGS AND LR-2PDA 39 If only rules created with step 1 or 2 and the corresponding transitions are used then. ie... γ k −1 = j ∈ I and δ = ¯ j Now the “only if” part (the basis was proven above). ⊥) ∗ k−1 ∗ (q n−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. implies: #[qAq n ] ⇒ γ 1 #a[q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] .y m = #w The same holds for the last symbol that is extracted from the stack (from II again): III. w ∈ Σ∗ .. ⊥..B m . First (if) direction: Induction Hypothesis: If (q..: (q. ⊥.... γ k −1 ) (p. . .. w. ⊥.. . so the induction hypothesis is: If γ 1 #u[qAp] ⇒ γ k #uw then (q. γ 1 ) implies #[qAq n ] ⇒ γ 1 #a [q 1 B 1 q 2 ] [q 2 B 2 q 3 ] . (q.[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 [⊥]. B m . PDA equivalence.. where γ i ∈ I ∗ and ∗ u. γ 1 ) k (p.3. γ k ) Decomposing y in m substrings. B i . A.B m . γ 1 ) k−1 (p. then γ 1 = . these are a CFG and a PDA and therefore follows from the standard CFG.. 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 . γ i ) for 1 ≤ j ≤ m The ﬁrst move in I. A. The basis is also proven for both directions. .[q n−1 B n−1 q n ] ⇒ γ k #ay 1 y 2 . y = y 1 . ⊥) (q 1 .. y i .y m where each y i has the eﬀect of popping B i from the stack (see the details corresponding to the PDA-CFG case in [41]) then there exist states q 2 .y m = #w where γ k = ⊥. q m + 1 = p. ⊥) δ ∗ (q i+1 .. w. ay. . such that the inductive hypothesis holds for each: II. A... y. ay. γ 1 ) Suppose: k ∗ (p. γ k −1 = ⊥ and δ = or [#] or 2.4. (q. Therefore I. γ k ) then γ 1 #u[qAp] ⇒ γ k #uw. A. γ k ) implies: δ #[qAq n ] ⇒ γ k −1 #ay 1 y 2 .

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

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

GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES • Proper inclusion of GILs in ILs. 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. We consider this quite possible. I 1 ∪ I 2 . Proof Let L1 and L2 be GILs generated respectively by the following GIGs: G1 = (N 1 . ∗ . A string w is in L1 if and only if the derivation #S 3 ⇒ #S 1 ⇒ #w is a derivation in G3 . P 3 . This is an open question. Union L1 ∪ L2 :. However it remains as an open question. S 3 ) where P 3 is P 1 ∪ P 2 plus the productions S 3 → S 1 | S 2 . There are no other derivations from S 3 than #S 3 ⇒ #S 1 and #S 3 ⇒ #S 2 Therefore L1 ∪ L2 = L3 . S 5 are not in N 1 or N 2 . This can be proved using the same type of construction as in the CFL case (e.g. For concatenation. I 1 . S 1 ) and G2 = (N 2 . I 2 are disjoint. #. GILs contain some languages that might not be ILs. we assume that N 1 . n 4. • CFLs are properly included in GILs. care should be taken that the two sets of stack indices be disjoint. Assume also that S 3 . T 1 . Proposition 1 GILs are closed under: union. N 2 . I 2 . S 4 . #. [41]). I 1 . • Proper inclusion of LILs in GILs. S 2 ) Since we may rename variables at will without changing the language generated. using two GIG grammars. P 2 . GCSLs include the language {ba2 |n ≥ 1} which is not semi-linear. instead of two CFG grammars. The same argument holds for w in L2 starting the derivation #S 3 ⇒ #S 2 . such as the MIX language. concatenation and Kleene closure. T 2 . • GILs and Growing Context Sensitive Languages are incomparable. Construct the grammar G3 = (N 1 ∪ N 2 . T 1 ∪ T 2 . We discuss this issue in Chapter 6.42 CHAPTER 4. ILs are not semi-linear and GILs are semi-linear. #. This result is obtained from the deﬁnition of GIGs. P 1 .

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

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

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

in .4 Pumping Lemmas and GILs This section and the remainder of this chapter will present some exploratory ideas rather than established results. Proof Given a GIG G = (N. This follows from Theorem 1.. in other words. ip . if p = A → α then p1 = A → α 2. i ∈ I. Dr and L1 are semilinear by the Parikh theorem (L1 and Dr are CFLs). 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.. and α. We can consider pumping lemmas for diﬀerent families of languages as specifying the following facts about them: .. ∈ (N ∪ T )∗ create a new production p1 ∈ P 1. if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iiα [i] It can be seen that L(G1) ⊆ Σ1 ∗ and that for each w that is in the GIL L(G) there is a word w1 ∈ L(G1) such that |i|(w1) = |¯ i|(w1). P ) such that ¯ Σ1 is (Σ ∪ I ∪ I) and P 1 is given according to the following conditions. S. ¯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. From S3 we obtain S 0 the semilinear set corresponding to ψ(L(G)). Σ. i Corollary 6 The emptiness problem is decidable for GILs. as follows: 1.46 CHAPTER 4. ik .. ψ(L(G1)) is an eﬀectively computable semi-linear set S 1 . removing the illegal derivations. #. GLOBAL INDEX LANGUAGES PROPERTIES The proof exploits the properties of Theorem 1: every GIL L = φ(Dr ∩ L1) such that L1 is a CFL. removing the pairs of ik and ¯k coordinates. if p = A → α then p1 = A → ¯ iα ¯ i 4. S. For every production p ∈ P where a ∈ T. P 1) Deﬁne a CFG grammar G1 = (N.. ¯n . 4. if p = A → α then p1 = A → iα i 3. Σ1 . I. We modify the construction of L1 in the proof of Theorem 1. ¯p )|aj . am . The intersection of S 1 and S 2 is a computable semilinear set S 3 according to [30].. note that S 2 is a subset of S 1 . By the Parikh theorem [60] the Parikh map of the CFL L(G1). . Let S 2 be the semilinear set {(a1 .

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

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

an with n ≥ 0 any integer i such that 0 ≤ i ≤ n is a position in w. S.3 i. These items are used to represent intermediate steps in the recognition process.1 $.2 j.2 5.3 CHAPTER 5.. Earley’s parsing algorithm [27] computes a leftmost derivation using a combination of top-down prediction and bottom-up recognition.oldnode). Create the Sets S i : 1 S0 = [S → • S$.1 GILs Recognition using Earley Algorithm Earley Algorithm. Creates a newnode if it is not in the graph and creates an edge from newnode to oldnode if necessary. Retrieves all the nodes that are connected by an edge from the currentnode. Because at this point we use nodes of unambiguous length.2 j. Earley’s main data structures are states or “items”.. Therefore. and ai ∈ T for 1 ≤ i ≤ n.3 i.1 j. There are as many sets as positions in the input string. T.1 j. n ≥ 0. pj ] is inserted in the set of states S i if α corresponds to the recognition of the substring aj .3 Figure 5. Let w = a1 a2 · · · an be an input string.. Push(newnode. Algorithm 1 (Earley Recognition for GFGs) . An item [A → α • β. Earley items are inserted in sets of states.52 i.1 $.2 i.0 j. Pop(curretnode).ai . Therefore the number of edges connecting a node to a preceding one is bound by the size of the indexing vocabulary.0 j.2.1: Two graph-structured stacks The following operations are possible on the graph-structured stack. pj ]. which are composed of a ”dotted” rule and a starting position: [A → α • β. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS i. Let G = (N. given a string w = a1 a2 .2 i. currentnode connects only to nodes of current length-1. 5. P ) be a CFG. 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) ..

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

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

0. Example 18 (Trace of aabbccdd) L(G2 ) = {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 0}.3) 17.1.ir].2.1) 5.2)]) 12 Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.Adding to chart: <23725> item(B.[].[].[].2.[i.1. Adding to chart: <27798> item(B.1.[#. b. Adding to chart: <23851> item(B.2.3.c].1.[b.Adding to chart: <23724> item(S.ir].e].1. Adding to chart: <26897> item(B.[i.[b].Adding to chart: <27671> item(S.[a].2.[].ir].2) Adding to stack: <22863> item((i.e].3). G2 = ({S.ir].[i.ir].[B.[].[b.1) 9 Adding to chart: <10640> item(S.[a.3. c.il].[a.3. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 55 shows the recognition of the string aabbccdd with the grammar G2 transformed into a trGIG.[b.2.4.2.ir].[#. {a.d].1.[i.0.3.d].0.1. Predotlist.[i.1) 6.c].4) .2) 10.1)) 7 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.3) 18.[b].2.[i. where P is: S → aSd.4.[c].(i.[#.[b.4. B}.1.0. OrderCounter. Postdotlist.3) 15.[i.2.[S.il].1.[].Adding to chart: <23599> item(S.3.ir].(#.[].d].0) 3 Adding to chart: <23470> item(S.[S.[#.2.d].S.[i.5.1.[b].e].ir].0) 2 Adding to chart: <27413> item(S. #.2.0. Each item is represented as follows: item(LeftSymbol.c].[B. i S→B B → bBc ¯ i B → bc ¯ i 1 Adding to chart: <10898> item(<start>. d}.il].[B].S.[b.0) Adding to stack: <22605> item((i.[#.0.1.0.[]. StackCounter. StackOperation].[a. P.B.3) 16 Adding to chart: <23852> item(B.3.2.1) 8 Adding to chart: <23598> item(B.[i.2.1.2.[].0.[i.[].c]. initialposition.1) Adding to stack: <22732> item((i.2) 11.[#.ir].0. Adding to chart: <23852> item(B. {i}.1).0)) 4 Adding to chart: <10771> item(S.[B].2. [Stacksymbol.il].0.[].2) 14.0.c].[a].1.3. S).c].S.c].[S].B.0.[].2).[i. ﬁnalposition) The stack operation is represented as follows: “il” is a push rule of the stack index “i” and “ir” is a pop rule.1.il].3.Adding to chart: <27540> item(S.[].0.d].(i.2.[#.3.[B].e].c].1.2) 13.[b.B.

[#.[#. S → • R.0)aaba[a][b] ¯ i 6 After recognized this substring. R → Rb | b ¯ j The following derivation is not possible (in particular step 4).1). Adding to chart: <10754> item(S. In other words.0.[c.?) aaba i i ¯ i ¯ j 1 2 3 4 However. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS Adding to chart: <22956> item(B. R → a • . 3). S → aS i 2.3) aabS ⇒(j .S.1.4. 0).[b]. 3. Adding to chart: <23215> item(S.2) aaS ⇒ (j .S.[#.il].2) aaS ⇒(i.0) S ⇒ (i.1) aS ⇒ (i.2.6) 25. Adding to chart: <23085> item(B.[S].[].2.3.[#.1)aabR[a][b]⇒(#.[].[S. S → bS • .[d. This bookkeeping is performed here by the order parameter. instead of the one introduced at step 5. The pairs in parenthesis represent the nodes of the graph-structured stack: (#. 6.3. 2. Consider the language Lww = {ww |w ∈ {a. 3] ∈ S 4 and [(j.ir].7) 27. S → bS j 3.[].0.[c.4) 20.0.4.0.2.1. aaRa ⇒ (?. 3.5) 21.0.0) S ⇒ (x. Adding to chart: <27654> item(B. 0).8) 28.[S. the following complete operation would be performed : Given [(#.0.a]. S → R • . j . In the following example the square brackets represent substrings to be recognized. the corresponding productions of the grammar Gww repeated below and the string aaba 1.7) 26.[c].[#.a].56 19 CHAPTER 5.il].il].1.1.0.0. 3] ∈ S 3 : ¯ j add [(#.[].[d].[#.0.b].ir].6) 23.2) aaR⇒ (i. R → Ra | a ¯ i 5.0.[B.2.[]. Adding to chart: <10625> item(S. (#. 2].2.[].3. 0).0.3.5) 22.[d.[B].0.2)aabR[b]⇒ i i j ¯ j ¯ i 1 2 3 4 5 (i.3) aabR⇒(i.B. Adding to chart: <23342> item(S.e].2.8) yes The following example shows why some bookkeeping of the order of the derivation is required in Earley items. S → R 4. b}∗ }.[c]. Adding to chart: <27783> item(B.ir].6) 24.[#. the following sequences can be generated using Earley’s Algorithm if no ordering constraint is enforced at the Completer Operation.ir]. the completer operation may jump up two steps and complete the “R” introduced after step 3.0.a].[#.[#. Adding to chart: <10982> item(<start>. 3] to S 4 Then the following are sequentially added to S 4 : a) [(#.e].[d].il].1) aS ⇒ (i. Adding to chart: <10883> item(S.b].0.[#.a].b].

complete steps have to check that there is a corresponding pop-move item that has been completed for every item produced at a reduced push move. 0. 4.2: Push and Pop moves on the same spine The following grammar produces alternative derivations which illustrate this issue. The ambiguity arises in the following conﬁguration S ⇒ aabR which would lead to the following items: [(#. P ) where P is: 1. {a. R → • ∗ • b c. This is depicted in the following ﬁgure 5. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM b) [(#. R → bc ¯ i 6. d}.2. 2] and b d. {i. 4. 1]. At this point.2. at some predict steps. 0). push push pop pop Figure 5. the complete operation of the previous algorithm does not specify the correct constraints. 1. Example 19 Gamb4 = ({S. b. 2]. j}. It cannot handle cases of what we call predict-complete ambiguity. 2).5. R → bRc ¯ i 5. S. c. R → bd ¯ j 4. #. completed-stack ambiguity and stack-position ambiguity. S → aS • . i 57 c) [(#. 0] i 5.2. . The predict-complete ambiguity In this case. R → bRd ¯ j Grammar Gamb4 produces the following derivation: S ⇒ i#aSd ⇒ ji#aaScd ⇒ ji#aaRcd ⇒ i#aabRdcd ⇒ #aabbcdcd But it does not generate the string aabbcddc nor aabbdccd. R}.3 Reﬁning the Earley Algorithm for GIGs The Algorithm presented in the preceding section does not specify all the necessary constraints. 2). there is no way to control the correct derivation given no information on the pop moves has been stored. In other words. S → R 7. 0). R → [(#. S → aSd i 2. and at completer cases. The exact prediction path that led to the current conﬁguration has to be transversed back in the complete steps. S → aSc j 3. S → aS • .

58

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

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

i,1 $,0 j,1

i,2

i,3

i,3

i,2

j,2

j,3

j,3

j,2

j,1

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

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

A

push

B

pop

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

i

R → aRd |ad

j

B → cBd |cd

¯ i

B → cBe |ce

¯ j

5.2. GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM

59

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

i,1 $,0 j,1 j,2 j,3 i,2 i,3

∗ ∗

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

i,1 $,0 j,1 j,2 j,3 i,2 i,3

Figure 5.6: A complete steps in the graph

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

60

CHAPTER 5. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS

i,1 $,0 j,1

i,2

i,3

i,1 $,0

i,2

i,3

j,2

j,3

j,1

j,2

j,3

Figure 5.7: Two alternative graph-structured stacks

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

push pop

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

i,5 $,0 $,0 j,1 j,2 j,3 j,4 j,5 j,8 i,6 i,7

i,1

i,2

i,3

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

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

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

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

Algorithm 5 .initialnode). ∆ + 2 ) such that ∆ + 2 ≥ ∆R add Path(∆ − 1 .64 CHAPTER 5. ∆R2 ) to Pathset ¯ else if ∆ − 1 > ∆R ¯ For edgeC(∆ − 1 . These edges will be introduced in the predict operation.12.12: 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. ∆ + 2 . RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS As we mentioned when we introduced the Push operation Push(newnode. ∆R ) to Pathset . This kind of edge relates ∆In nodes. I-edges are depicted in ﬁgure 5. ∆ + 2 . StorePath(∆ − 1 . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ¯ If ∆ − 1 = ∆R : ¯ For edge(∆ − 1 . ∆R 2) add Path(∆ − 1 . ∆ + 2 . ∆R ): ¯ ¯ ¯ where ∆ − 1 . I the set of indices. ∆R2 ) add Path(∆ − 1 . ∆R2 ) to Pathset ¯ For edge(∆−1 . and ∆ − 1 . we will make use of an additional type of edge. ∆ − 3 ∈ I. ∆ − 3 . ∆ − 3 ) For Path (∆ − 3 . ∆R ) to Pathset ¯ For edgeC (∆−1 . therefore we will call them I-edges. The interpretation of these edge is that there is a path connecting the two ∆In nodes. ∆ − 3 ) and For Path(∆ − 3 . ∆R2 ∈ I ∪ I. ∆ + 2 .oldactivnode. ∆ + 2 ∈ I. by the following Push function. ∆ + 2 . It also takes into account the diﬀerence between nodes corresponding to completed constituents (lines 7-12) and nodes corresponding to incomplete constituents (lines 1-6). ∆ + 2 . Notice that an I-edge can be identical to a push or pop edge. ∆R2 ) add Path(∆ − 1 ∆ − 3 . ∆R . B I−edge α push or pop edge A Figure 5.

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

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 0 . p0 ). (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and δ 2 ∈ I: add every [Ac(δ 2 . p1 ). δ r . B → α • Aβ. p2 ). j] ∈ S i . pr )) 1.2. p0 ). i] to S i and push( (δ 2 . A → • γ. δ 1 ∈ I and δ 2 = δ add every [Ac(δ 1 . p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . p0 ) ) 1. p1 ). p2 ). p2 ). p2 ) ∈ path(δ 1 . p0 ). p0 )) ¯ 1. p2 ). I(δ 0 . I(δ 0 . I(δ 2 . j] ∈ S i and (A → γ) ∈ P and δ 1 . j] ∈ S i δ= and (A → γ) ∈ P such that δ ¯ or δ = [δ 1 ] or (δ 2 . Scanner If [∆Ac . p3 ) ∈ path((δ 1 . j] ∈ S i .1 Predictor Push CHAPTER 5. p2 ). A → αa • β. (δ 3 . B → α • Aβ. I(cl(δ 0 ). p1 ).2. (δ 1 . (δ r . A → • γ.66 1. A → • γ. (δ 1 . All the completer operations . I(δ 0 . p1 ). p2 ). p2 ).3 Predictor e-move If [Ac(δ 1 . p2 ).b Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I ¯ If [Ac(δ 1 . p0 ). i] to S i such that: p2 = i + 1. B → α • Aβ. p1 ). p1 ). p2 ). A → • γ. and push( (δ 2 . j] ∈ S i and wi + 1 = a: add [∆A . A → α • aβ. p1 ). B → α • Aβ. p1 ). (δ 0 . (δ 0 . ∆In . ¯ such that: δ 2 = δ 1 and p2 = −p1 (A → γ) ∈ P δ2 and ¯ δ 2 ∈ I = δ¯ : 1 add every [Ac(δ 2 . I(δ 0 . I(δ 2 . p1 ). ∆In . p0 ) ) StorePath((δ 2 . i] to S i ¯ such that: (δ 3 . p0 ). I(δ 2 . p1 ). RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS If [Ac(δ 1 . p2 ). p3 ). (δ 1 . p2 ). (δ 0 . i] to S i 2. δ 2 ∈ I: δ2 add every [Ac(δ 2 . pr )) and δ 2 = δ 3 and p3 = −p2 and push( (δ 2 .a Predictor Pop: Active Node is in I If [Ac(δ 1 .

GILS RECOGNITION USING EARLEY ALGORITHM 67 check properties of the combination target item in S j against edges that relate its the initial node ∆I0 to the initial node of the completed triggering item ∆In .5. p3 ). p0 ). I(δ 3 . a reduction can be performed. k] to S i Subcase 3.1). As a result of the combination. ). we need to check also whether the stack associated ¯ with each subtree is a proper substring of the Dyck language over I ∪ I. ∆I0 ) (where the omitted element is the active node ∆Ac of the combination target).3.e ∆Ac = (δ 2 . p3 ). A → αB • β. This is the reverse of predictor 1. B → γ • . p2 ) such that δ ∈ I ∪ {#} and 0 ≤ p2 ≤ n). These edges are of the form (∆In . A → α • Bβ. a}. ∆I0 = (cl(δ). the initial node ∆In is in I. p2 ). A completion edge is introduced recording the fact that this push node ∆In has been completed. I(δ 3 . At this step. Combination with an e-move item: δ 0 ∈ cl(I ∪ I) If [Ac(δ 2 . However. p3 ). . ¯ 3.2. We use the symbol ‘ ’ hereafter to indicate that the information stored in the corresponding ﬁeld is not required in the computation. 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. (derived by Predictor 1. Therefore if the information is stored in a three dimension table. it means that only two dimensions are being used. The active node ∆Ac is also in I or it is the empty stack (i. p0 ) I(δ 0 . j] ∈ S i : for edge((δ 3 . ie. 3 Use the standard terminology concerning Dyck languages as found for instance in [39]. The constraint that there is an I-edge between ∆In and ∆I0 is checked.e.3 e-move) and therefore its initial node is a transmitted node. . the transmitted nodes are consumed.a Completer A. therefore.b combines a completed triggering item generated by a push production (using the prediction operation 1. a stack that is in the ¯ Dyck3 language of the indices and its complements (I ∪ I)). The ﬁrst completer subcase involves a combination item in S j that had been generated by an e-production. ( . k] ∈ S j such that: ¯ δ 0 ∈ cl(I ∪ I) add [Ac(δ 2 . and the active node has to contain its inverse. the initial node ∆In is inherited by the result item. p0 )) and for [Ac1(δ 0 . The result item preserves the active node from the triggering item and the initial node from the combination target item. p). If a subtree is in the Dyck language over a ¯ DI. The idea is to be able to compute whether a tree has a valid stack (i. p2 ). (δ 0 . No further constraints are checked. This is the equivalent of a production S → aS¯ for a Dyck language over the alphabet {a. .

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

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

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

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

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

∆Ac + + +/-.3. might require O(i2 ). −) pushC(∆In . COMPLEXITY ANALYSIS I_0 73 − I_0 i−edge − I_3 Ac_2 − Ac_2 − Figure 5.1 Complexity Analysis Overview The algorithm presented above has one sequential iteration (a for loop). Predictor e-move and Predictor Push operations on an item each require constant time. transmitted Speciﬁc Actions ∆I 0 ← ∆In pushC(∆In . . Each item in S i has the form: [Ac(δ 1 . which may have O(i) active nodes. Predictor pop. therefore the pop procedure might take time O(i2 ) for each set S i . p2 ). p1 . For each active node there might be at most i edges..(∆A > ∆In ) +/ +/TARGET ITEM transmitted +/+/+/+/. It has a maximum of n iterations where n is the length of the input. ∆I0 ) ¯ check for ∆In reduce: ∆A ← ∆In − 1 reduce with path2 pushC(∆In .5. I(δ 2 . Scanner. ≤ i Thus there might be at most O(i3 ) items in each set S i . A → α • Bβ. p2 . p1 ).(∆A = ∆I ) +/.3 5.3.19: Completer G Summary of Completer Cases CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM +/+ + + transmitted ACTIVE NODE +/+ ¯ . −) 5. j] where: 0 ≤ j.

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

we keep separate the size of the context-free backbone and the indexing mechanism. 5. TAGs. the sources of increase in the time complexity are a) ambiguity between mode of operation in the stack ( . B. O(n2 ) for unambiguous context free back-bone grammars with unambiguous indexing and O(n) for bounded-state8 context free back-bone grammars with unambiguous indexing. c. The expensive one is the ﬁrst case. 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]). 7 and 8 would be bounded by the square of the number of b’s scanned so far. The properties of Earley’s algorithm for CFGs remain unchanged. All average case results reported are empirical.3. d}. 8 Context Free grammars where the set of items in each state set is bounded by a constant. the similar grammar Gamb3 = ({S. m + k = n} Therefore. most algorithms for CFGs. {a. {i. so the following results hold: O(n6 ) is the worst case. }. m. the real limiting factor in practice is the size of the grammar. and other grammar formalisms run much better than the worst case. k ≥ 0.3. #. Unambiguous indexing should be understood as those grammars that produce for each string in the language a unique indexing derivation.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. 4. The size of the grammar designated by |G| corresponds to the number of rules and the number of non-terminals. Complexity results concerning formalisms related to Natural Language (including CFLs) mostly are worst case results (upper bounds) and they do establish polynomial parsing of these grammars. O(n3 ) holds for grammars with constant or unambiguous indexing. push. or pop) through the same derivation CF path and b) a diﬀerent index value used in the same type of stack operation. P ) would produce items proportional to i in each set S i : S → aSd i S → BC B → bB ¯ i B→ C → cC ¯ i C→ L(Gam3 ) = {an bk cm dn |n ≥ 1. Usually. b. S. There are no mathematical average case results. However. In the analysis we present here. . This will allow to compare what is the impact of the indexing mechanism as an independent multiplicative factor. C}.5. In practice. 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.

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

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

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

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

..X k is a production of type (a. P ) as follows..X n is a production of type (c.X k γ.. and δ y ∈ C then: ¯ µ wAγ. .. taking into account the operations on the stack..ai Aγ. p1 ).X n is a production of type (c. If A → aX 1 ... 1.. #δx 2. If A → X 1 . #δx¯ x ¯ 4. µ = µ [x] or µ = [x].e. A → α • β... #δ ⇒ βX 1 . If A → X 1 . 173-185 and [87] for a control language representation for LIGs. #δx ⇒ βX 1 ..X n γ.. then: ¯ µ wAγ. Deﬁne C ¯ to be the Dyck language over the alphabet I ∪ I (the set of stack indices and their complements).) or pop : µ = x.. x ∈ I) then: βAγ. It is apparent that both deﬁnitions of a GIG language are equivalent. δ be in I ∗ ..4. We can obtain an explicit control language9 modifying the deﬁnition of derivation for any GIG G = (N.) (i.) or pop : µ = x.. Let β and γ be in (N ∪ T )∗ . 9 See ∗ [25] for control languages pp. then: µ wAγ.X n γ. x in I... L(G) to be: {w|#S ⇒ #w and w is in T ∗ }. y ∈ I. δ is in C }. p0 ). C): {w| S.) or push: µ = x. #δx ⇒ wX 1 .80 CHAPTER 5. i] is a valid item in the Set S j if and only if the following holds: ¯ 1. #δxδ y ⇒ wX 1 . x ∈ I. x ∈ I. #δ ⇒ waX k . S.. #δ and w is in T ∗ . # ⇒ w.X n γ. T. #δ or βAγ. we address the correctness of the algorithm as follows: Proposition 6 (Invariants) . If A → X 1 .X n is a production of type (b. #. I. #δxδ y¯ x Then. S.. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ .. I(z... w be in T ∗ and X i in (N ∪ T ).. # ⇒ a1 .. Assuming such an alternative deﬁnition of a GIG language. deﬁne the language of a GIG G to be the control language L(G.X k γ. #δx 3.1 Control Languages ∗ We deﬁned the language of a GIG G.. x ∈ I. This is speciﬁed in terms of the Dyck language over ¯ I ∪I 5. ∗ An item [Ac(y. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS The corresponding invariants of Earley’s algorithm for GIGs can be stated in a similar way.

δ ∈ DI iﬀ z µy π = epsilon. speciﬁes that the item has a transmitted node from the graph if the empty string was generated in the control language. y ∈ I ∪ I iﬀ z = z . y π A z ai a . The remaining conditions specify the properties of the string νz µy π relative to the control language C. z. a framework that allows high-level speciﬁcation and analysis of parsing algorithms [75. # γ . ¯ b.2 Parsing Schemata We use Parsing Schemata. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM 2. d. Condition d. #νz µy π Such that: a. ν.α η β µ . i+1 aj ν z µ yπ Figure 5.aj . #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . y = y .. Condition a.. speciﬁes the constraints related to the position correlation with the strings in the generated language.. p0 ≤ i + 1 and p1 ≤ j.21: GIG invariant We will use Parsing Schemata to prove this proposition.5. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ 81 3. Condition c.4. It will also help to understand the implementation of the algorithm we detail in the appendix. α. speciﬁes the properties of information of the graph-structured stack encoded in the item.. Figure 5. ∈ cl(δ ). which naturally embed the invariant properties of the Earley algorithm for CFGs. ∗ S ν a 1 . speciﬁes the properties for the diﬀerent types of productions that generated the current item. else δ = ¯ ¯ ¯ c. δ = z iﬀ δ ∈ I ∪ I. 76].4. This framework enables the analysis of relations between diﬀerent parsing . µπ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . π ∈ C and νz µy πρ ∈ C for some ρ ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . 5.21 depicts the properties of the invariant.. Condition b. z..

We present parsing schemata rather informally here. j. k]. i. [a. Earley items. The input string is encoded by the set of hypothesis HEarley . [B → γ • δ.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] DEarley = DInit ∪ DScan ∪ DPred ∪ DComp F Earley = {[S → S • .g. j] [A → αa • β. j + 1]} such that A → αβ ∈ P and 0 ≤ i ≤ j HEarley = {[a. represent the recognition of a [B → • γ. i.aj } ∗ .. DComp = {[A → α • Bβ.. j]} DInit = { [S → • S. 0.. j. A Parsing schema extends parsing systems for arbitrary grammars and strings.an ∈ Σ∗ by: I Earley = {[A → α • β. A ﬁnal item F(PEarley ) ∈ I is correct if there is a parse tree for any string a1 .. This parsing schema is deﬁned by a parsing system PEarley for any CFG G and any a1 . deﬁned by I Earley below. [A → αB • β. i. A set of ﬁnal items..an that conforms to the item in question. i. DPred . n]}. The corresponding set of items in the Schema is encoded by an additional parameter in the items Schema items. 0. V(PEarley ) = {[A → α • β. j]}. Deduction steps are of the form η 1 . DScan = {[A → α • aβ. Parsing Schema 1 (Earley Schema for CFGs) . 0]}. then the consequent ξ is generated by the parser. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS algorithms by means of the relations between their respective parsing schemata. say j. i. i − 1. Earley operations are deﬁned by the allowed deductions: DScan . 0.82 CHAPTER 5. j. Parsing Schemata are generalizations (or uninstantiations) of a parsing system P. i..ai Aγ ∧ ∗ ∗ α ⇒ ai+1 . η k sentence.an } The set of valid items is deﬁned by the invariant of the algorithm. j + 1] DPred = {[A → α • Bβ.. C Earley = {[S → S • . as we already saw are stored in sets according to each. j]|S ⇒ a1 .[72]).. F ∈ I. As an example we introduce the Earley Schema for CFGs. ξ which means that if all the required antecedents η i are present. Parsing schemata are closely related to the deductive parsing approach (e. j]. DComp . i] | a = ai ∧ 1 ≤ i ≤ n}..... j]}.. position in the string. A parsing system P for a grammar G and a string a1 .. k. n] |S ⇒ a1 . .

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

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

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

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

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

. Scanner.ai Aγ.aj −1 . I(z. n ≥ 0 where each ak ∈ T for 1 ≤ k ≤ n. µ y aj π π a j Figure 5. where correct means that the proposition 2. I.. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 . η k item. I(z. correctness of the push items is straightforward. 1 ≤ i ≤ k it holds that ξ ∈ W This can be rephrased as follows in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5. A → α • aβ. η k are correct items. Let 0 ≤ i. V(P) ⊆ W. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS S z S zy y a1 # x γ ρ a 1 .. • Case 1. • 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. T. # µ y x γ ρ . p1 ). p0 ). S) be a GIG and let w = a1 · · · an . Proof .. #ν for some γ ∈ V ∗ and some ν ∈ (I ∪ I)∗ . η j then η j is a correct • If η i . An item η j : [Ac(y. For all η 1 · · · η k ξ ∈ D with η i ∈ H ∪ W. A → αa • β. Predict Completer) . #. Regarding the pop items it is derived from the path function. i] is in S j if and only if η j −1 : [Ac(y. # ⇒ a1 . p1 ).2.88 CHAPTER 5. Let G = (N. p0 ).(A → αaβ) ∈ P δ ∗ c. α. S.. then scan ηj ¯ a. .22: Path invariant Lemma 7 (GIG items soundness is preserved under Scan. i] is in S j −1 and η j −1 Since η j −1 is correct. for grammar G and input w and η i . #νz µy π 10 From 11 The ∗ [76]. j ≤ n. P... b.. (the invariant property) holds.

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

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

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

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

p0 ). For each ξ ∈ W there is some η 1 · · · η k 1 ≤ i ≤ k. #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. then an item ξ = [Ac(y. p3 ) 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 . Result x µy π #νz µu π(x µ (y π #νz µu π(x µ y )π . A → α • β.5.(x < y) +/ TARGET ITEM Ac1(u. p0 ) cl(z µu π) = +/+/+/+/+ +/-.4. If 1. #νδ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . It states that all the derivations in the grammar will have the corresponding item in the set of states.2 and Proposition 6. i] is inserted in the Set S j . PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM cl(x)µ y π = Therefore the result is νzµuπ 93 The following table 5. −) #νzµuπ +:u Table 5. CASE A B C D E F G H COMPLETED ITEM I1(x. (A → αβ) ∈ P δ ∗ ¯ 3. S. # ⇒ a1 · · · ai Aγ. p1 ). Completeness) . α. #ν 2. p2 ) +/+/+ –+ + – + -x=u ¯ cl(xµyπ ) = –: y=x ¯ +/. I(z. . This lemma is equivalent to the following claim in terms of the algorithm presented in section 5.1 summarizes the conditions speciﬁed by the Completer Operations. p1 ) I(z.1: Conditions on the completer Deductions Lemma 8 (Second direction.

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

ζ ξ if δ = and xµyπ = η = [p. j] η η ξ if δ = ξ ∧ ηp and η p = [p. ν zν yν µ } with π + 2λ + 2µ minimal. η . π. γ . # ⇒ δAγ . p1 ). p1 ). ζ = [Ac(y. p3 ). p0 )] such that p = push or p = pop. p1 ). p0 ). η. p3 ). A → α • Bβ. #ν δ δ λ π ∗ α. (z. j] is in S k and d(η) = d(η ) − 1 < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. B → γ • . η . p2 ). δ.5. p0 ). #ν . (u. ζ = [Ac(y. #ν ⇒ αBβ. (u. I(cl(z). p2 ). #ν δ ⇒ ai+1 · · · aj . ζ ξ • Predict: ξ = [Ac(y. ζ if δ = ξ 95 and xµyπ = ζ = [Ac(u. I(x. p1 ). #ν ⇒ a1 · · · ai . # ⇒ a1 · · · aj Bγ . B → • γ. η. I(z. j] is in S k and d(η) < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1. (x. η. B → γ • . p3 ). p3 ). λ. (y. p1 ). p0 )] such that p = push or p = pop. p3 ). I(z. B → γ • . #ν and let δ. p0 )] d(η) = d(ξ) − 1 = d(η p ) . µ such that S. p0 ). (z. p1 ). (x. PROOF OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ALGORITHM η = [p. #ν and A. j] is in S k and d(η) < d(η ) < d(ζ) = d(ξ) − 1.4. Then η = [Ac(y. j] in S j Let S. (δ. η . (z. I(x.

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

0). 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. • The mix language {w|w ∈ {a. 0). • Grammar Gamb5b which generates aacdbbcd and aadcbbdc but does not generate aacdbbdd nor aacdbbdc (a variation of Gamb5 presented above). The number of items generated for the Mix and the copy languages were as follows: . b}+ } • Grammar Gamb4 which generates aabbcdcd but does not generate aabbcddc nor aabbdccd. w ∈ {a. which where performed by procedures which implemented the path function over the graph representation. 3. generate all items that are new immediate consequences of the trigger item together with all items in the chart. S → • S$. S → S • . In this implementation the control language was not represented by separate items but as side conditions on the inference rules. 0). (#. 0]} and the encoding of the input string. b}∗ } • {w(cw)+ |w ∈ {a. otherwise it is not. {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm in j n |n ≥ 1} • {an bn wwcn dn |n ≥ 1. 0. Tests on the following languages were performed: • {an bn cn |n ≥ 1}.5.5. b}+ } {an (bn cn )+ |n ≥ 1}. {an bn cn de n |n ≥ 1}. b. and add these generated items to the agenda. IMPLEMENTATION 97 (c) If the trigger item was added to the chart. {an bn cn dn |n ≥ 1}. The axioms correspond to the initial item in the Parsing Schema: DInit = { [(#. This grammar has a high degree of ambiguity. the goal is proved (and the string recognized). • {an bn cm dm en f n g m hm |n ≥ 1}. If a goal item is in the chart. (#. {ww|w ∈ {a. The goal corresponds to the ﬁnal item in the Parsing Schema: F EGIG = {[(#. 0. 0). n]}.

The similarities of Earley Parsing and LR parsing are made explicit in those transformations.736 50.6. We use this notion of viable preﬁxes to describe the computation of the rm rm ∗ main stack in a LR-2PDA. We say a GIG item index pair [ δ. 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 . 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.500 ≈2.100 ≈5. In the GIG case.98 Length 6 9/10 12 15/16 18 CHAPTER 5. 5. We will refer to the connections between Earley parsing and LR parsing to clarify this presentation. 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.800 5. The sets that deﬁne the states in GIG LR parsing are composed by a pair of sets (IT. ≈ 300 ≈ 1.1 LR items and viable preﬁxes We assume the reader has knowledge of LR parsing techniques (cf.000 ≈ 16.ai Aβ ⇒ δγ j a1 . ≈ 500 ≈ 2.000 20. IN ). if multiple values are allowed in the parsing table (cf. ∗ ∗ rm rm ∗ . This approach can be extended to a Generalized LR parsing approach.aj β 2 β.976 Mix L. [41]. Both [75] and [3] describe transformations of Earley Parsing Schemata to LR Parsing Schemata. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS n4 1296 10... ≈ 100 ≈ 400 ≈ 700 ≈ 1.6 LR parsing for GILs An LR parser for a CFL is essentially a compiler that converts an LR CFG into a DPDA automaton (cf. 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.. [2]).000 Copy L. [80]). 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. It is also more complex because GIL derivation requires leftmost derivation for the stack operations.000 ≈ 28.500 ≈ 2. the technique we present here converts an LR GIG into a deterministic LR-2PDA according to the deﬁnition presented in Chapter 2. [2]).000 ≈6.100 MCopy L. Therefore the set of items has to encode the corresponding top-down prediction that aﬀects the stack of indices.000 ≈ 9..625 104.

For the GIG algorithm the set of items and possible index values cannot be determined only by the Closure operation. If A → α • Bβ is in closure(IT ) and (i) B → γ is a production where δ is in I ∪ { }. or (ii) µ δ B → aγ then add the item B → • γ (case 1) or the item B → • aγ (case 2) to IT if it is not δ δ δ already there. ) = {B → • γ |B → γ is a production } (a NFA transition) In the GIG case the transitions should be as follows. R}. S → cR 6. Gwcw = ({S. For CFG parsing (cf. R → Ra ¯ i 5. 2. {i. Initially. the goto function and the parsing table. The following example uses a grammar for the language Lwcw to depict the construction of the set of items.5. {a. R → [#] 4. If IT is a set of items for a grammar G. They are also determined by the Goto operation.6. if the index operation is for instance ¯: ι δ(A → α • Bβ. The Closure operation is equivalent to the Predict function in Earley parsing (cf.2 The Closure Operation. However in Earley’s algorithm this computation is done in run-time while in LR parsing it is precompiled in the LR states. ¯ 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. then closure(IT ) is the set of items constructed from IT by the two rules: 1. LR PARSING FOR GILS 99 5. b}. S → bS j 3.6. . ι) = {(B → • γ. #. [41]) the Closure operation is equivalent to obtaining the set of states of a NFA that recognizes the viable preﬁxes. Example 21 L(Gwcw ) = {wcw |w ∈ {a. S → aS i 2.[3]). P ) and P is: 1.The transitions of this NFA are of the following form: δ(A → α • Bβ. R → Rb ¯ j The set of states for the grammar Gwcw should encode the possible conﬁgurations of the stack of indices as follows: . ) |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. Apply this rule until no more new items can be added to the closure of IT . Such productions are considered in case 2 of the Goto function. j}. every item in IT is added to closure(IT ). S. b}∗ }.

ιj ). then goto(I. if I is the set of items that are valid for some viable preﬁx-index pairs (γ. Intuitively. the Goto function in the GIG case is a PDA and the set of viable preﬁxes with associated indices is a context-free language.ι). The CF function goto(IT. #} # # 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 5.100 I0 : # S → •S S → • aS i CHAPTER 5. The CF Goto function is a DFA transition function where IT is in the state set and X is in the vocabulary. then goto(I. is the set of items that are valid of the viable preﬁx-index pairs (γX.3 The Goto Operation. X). j. if µ µ I is the set of items that are valid for some viable preﬁx γ. The operation goto(IT. X) is the set of items that are valid for the viable preﬁx γX. #} {i. ι) = (I j . 5.ιj ) in other words.IN 2 ) where either 1 or 2 applies: . #} {i. We will describe the Goto function adding the possibility of computing the possible stack values of the PDA for each state.6. In the GIG case.23: Set of States for Gwcw In the same way that the dot implies that some input symbols have been consumed. IN ) is deﬁned to be the pair (IT 2 . X. 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. j. RECOGNITION AND PARSING OF GILS I1 : i S → a•S i i I2 : j S → b•S j i I3 : I4 : I5 : I6 : I 10 : {i. We will say an index i is in IN if (i. where IT is a set of items and X is a grammar symbol. s) is in IN . s) where i is an index symbol and s is a state deﬁned by a set of items closure. j. The set I6 requires that the stack be empty. 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. is deﬁned to be the closure of the set of all items [A → αX • β] such that [A → α • Xβ] is in IT . X.

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

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

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

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

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

3: Trace of the LR-parser on the input abcab and grammar Gwcw . 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 5.106 CHAPTER 5.

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

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

a] [a] [. j}. In such structure the dependencies are introduced in the leftmost derivation order. (i. But the exact mirror image of that structure. the structure of ﬁgure 6..3) cannot be generated by a GIG because it would require push productions with a non terminal in the ﬁrst position of the right-hand side. #.a] [c. ¯ Gadj = ({AP. Such an structure can be obtained using a GIG (and of course an LIG). b.e.4 at the left.2: A non context-free structural description for the language wwR unbounded dependencies. [.b.] [a] [b.] a b c d d c b a Figure 6. A.b.4: Example 22 (Comparative Construction) . The English adjective constructions that Gazdar uses to motivate the LIG derivation are generated by the following GIG grammar.c.a] [a] [. c}.e. AP..a] [d. (i.. 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 .6.3: Another non context-free structural description for the language wwR However GIGs generate a similar structural description as depicted in ﬁgure 6.a] [c.a] [b. {a. {i. in productions that are not in Greibach Normal Form).a] [c. The corresponding structural description is shown in ﬁgure 6.c.1. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 109 [.b.] Figure 6.b.a] [d. N P.a] [b.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b. A}..b.b.a] [c.

d] b [d] c d Figure 6. The arrows show the leftmost derivation order that is required by the operations on the stack.] [..a] c d d a [b.6 at the left.c] a b A c [c] b Figure 6. but not the one at the right. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [.a] [d. [..a] [.] a b c d a b c d [b.b.a] [a.d] [c..3. shown in ﬁgure 6.d] a [b..b.a] c A A [a.a] [a] [. The structural description at the left can be generated by a GIG.] A NP b [c] [a] [b.110 CHAPTER 6. On the other hand.d] [d] [. could . a similar one can be obtained using the same strategy as we used with the comparative construction..3 The Copy Language Gazdar presents the following two possible LIG structural descriptions for the copy language (depicted in ﬁgure 6.4: GIG structural descriptions for the language wwR It should be noted that the operations on indices are reversed as compared to the LIG case shown in ﬁgure 6. 6.b..c.] A [b.5: Two LIG structural descriptions for the copy language Gazdar further argues that the following tree structure.c.b.b.c] NP [d.a] [b.c.c] [c..a] [a] [b.a] [c.] [b.] NP AP [.a] [c.b.c.d] [c. However...b.] AP AP AP [.] NP NP c NP [. the introduction of indices is dependent on the presence of lexical information and its transmission is not carried through a top-down spine.5).] [a] a b c d [c.c.] a A a b [..b. as in the LIG case.1.

a] c [a] b [] a [d.c.d] [b.c.b.a] [a.c.a] c d d [c.a] a b c d [c.6.d] [a.a] [b.a] [b.c.a] [a] [d.d] b c [d] d [b. where the arrows depict the leftmost derivation order.d] [c.c.a] d c b [c.a] [b.d] a b c d [c.b.a] [c.b.a] [d.b.7: A GIG structural description for the multiple copy language . corresponding to the grammar shown in example 10.a] [c.1.b.a] [d.b.d] [] [d.a] [a] [a] [] [b. but they can generate the one presented in the ﬁgure 6.b.d] [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.b.c.c.b.c.6 at the left either.b.c.b.a] ε a d [b.d] [a.a] [a] a [] b Figure 6.c.c.a] [c.a] [a] [] [d.d] [d] [d.c.b.b.a] [b.a] [c.6: An IG and GIG structural descriptions of the copy language GIGs cannot produce the structural description of ﬁgure 6.7.c.a] [a] a b a c [b. Such structure cannot be generated by a LIG. [d] [c.b.b.b.a] [d.6 (right).b. GIGs can also produce similar structural descriptions for the language of multiple copies (the language {ww+ | w ∈ Σ∗ } as shown in ﬁgure 6. but can be generated by an IG.c.b. [] [a] [b.a] [c.b.a] b c d ε a Figure 6.

F.] [i] [.] [i] a a [i.11.112 CHAPTER 6.10 (at the right). f }. The corresponding structure is depicted in the ﬁgure 6. L(Gsum ) = { an bm cm dl el f n | n = m + l ≥ 1}. {i}. as we show in ﬁgures 6. #.] c c b [i...] d [..] b Figure 6. e.9: A LIG and a GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies GIGs can also produce other structures that cannot be produced by a LIG.. c.9 (right).10 and 6. [.i] b [. R.8 and the somehow equivalent in 6.] [i. It is mentioned in [82] in relation to the deﬁnition of composition in [79] Categorial Grammars. Example 23 (Dependent branches) .i] [i.i] d [i] b c d a a [i] b b [..i] [i] c c d [. The following language cannot be generated by LIGs.4 Multiple dependencies Gazdar does not discuss of the applicability of multiple dependency structures in [29].9 (left). S. {a. P ) where P is: ..] [i.i] d [i] b b [.] [.8 and 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS 6.] c c Figure 6.. Gsum = ({S.8: LIG and GIG structural descriptions of 4 and 3 dependencies [.i] [i] d [. d. L}.] c [i] [i..1... GIGs can generate the same structures as in 6. The relevant structures that can be produced by a LIG are depicted in ﬁgures 6. b. which permits composition of functions with unbounded number of arguments and generates tree sets with dependent paths.

1. LINEAR INDEXED GRAMMARS (LIGS) AND GLOBAL INDEX GRAMMARS (GIGS) 113 S → aSf |R i R→F L|F |L F → b F c |b c ¯ i L → d L e |d e ¯ i The derivation of aabcdef f : #S ⇒ i#aSf ⇒ ii#aaSf f ⇒ ii#aaRf f ⇒ ii#aaF Lf f ⇒ i#aabcLf f ⇒ #aabcdef f [.i] a b b c [i] [.] [.] [i.5 Crossing dependencies Crossing dependencies in LIGs and TAGs have the same structural description as the copy language.i] b [i] [i] c [.i] a c c [.] d [i] a c d b d e Figure 6.11: GIG structural descriptions of 3 dependencies 6.] c [i] a [i..i] a [i] [i] [i. The ﬁrst example is generated by the grammars Gcr presented in Chapter 3 and repeated here. GIGs can produce crossing dependencies with some alternative structures as depicted in the following structures.i] [i.i] f [.] [i] a f [i.. ..] [i] a [..i] [i..] d d ε b Figure 6...i] [i] a [i..] c [i.i] [i.1.] [..6.10: GIG structural descriptions of 4 dependencies [.

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

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

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

[.a] [c.c.c.d] [d] [.] [a] a b c d d c b a [b. SET INCLUSION BETWEEN GIGS AND LIGS 117 In this way...b. such as index renaming: [. without some mayor changes in the mapping algorithm..b.a] [c. second case The structures depicted in ﬁgure 6.a] [a] [.c.] [.a] [d.b.a] [c..12: Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs The previous lemma would not work in the following structure.] [a] [b.a] [b.b.a] [c.. .b.d] [c.a] [b.6.14 would require even more additional machinery.b. the equivalence of the structures in ﬁgure 6.a] [a] [...b.] [.] [b.a] [d.2.a] [a] a b c d d c b a Figure 6.13: Left and right recursive equivalence in LIGs.b.c.] a b c d a b c d [b.d] a [b.c.d] [c.12 involving the palindrome language would be obtained.b.b.] [a] a b c d [c. There is no way that a LIG like the one generating the three dependencies could be transformed into a LIG in push-GNF.d] b [d] c d Figure 6. because it would need some additional changes.a] [c.a] [a.a] [b.a] [d.c.

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

3 GIGs and HPSGs We showed in the last section how GIGs can produce structural descriptions similar to those of LIGs. Such compilation process allowed the identiﬁcation of signiﬁcant parts of HPSG grammars that were mildly context-sensitive. In this section. This does not change the power of the formalism. We will introduce informally some slight modiﬁcations to the operations on the stacks performed ¯ by a GIG. This follows from the ability of GIGs to capture dependencies through diﬀerent paths in the derivation. by performing HPSG derivations at compile time. One of the motivations was the potential to improve the processing eﬃciency of HPSG. [48]. [8]). [39]) to allow to push/pop several symbols from the stack. GIGS AND HPSGS 119 pop pop push b pop push 1 a1 a2 b2 push pop pop a3 pop b3 a3 a2 a1 push b 3 push b 2 push b1 Figure 6. We will allow the productions of a GIG to be annotated with ﬁnite strings in I ∪ I instead of single symbols.6. It is a standard change in PDAs (cf. we will show how the structural descriptive power of GIGs is not only able to capture those phenomena but also additional structural descriptions compatible with those generated by HPSGs [61] schemata.16: LIGs not in push-GNF II in GIGs should be considered in detail. and others which are beyond the descriptive power of LIGs and TAGs. Also the symbols will be interpreted relative to the elements in the top of the stack (as a Dyck set). 6. Those structural descriptions corresponding to ﬁgure 6. Therefore.2 were correlated to the use of the SLASH feature in GPSGs and HPSGs.3. There has been some work compiling HPSGs into TAGs (cf. diﬀerent derivations .

according to what is on the top of the stack. Head-Subj-Schema Figure 6. HEAD 1 SUBJ < > H SUBJ 2 1 HEAD SUBJ < 2 > 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. obtaining very similar structural descriptions.120 CHAPTER 6.17 depicts the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Subject Schema in HPSG [61]. Example 27 (intransitive verb) XP → Y P XP XP → X YP →Y X→x nv ¯ Y →y n . The arrows indicate how the transmission of features is encoded in the leftmost derivation order. 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. This is exempliﬁed with the productions X → x and X → x. in particular in the ﬁrst three cases where nv ¯ [n]v diﬀerent actions are taken (the actions are explained in the parenthesis) : nnδ#wXβ ⇒ vnδ#wxβ (pop n and push v) nv ¯ n¯δ#wXβ ⇒ δ#wxβ v nv ¯ (pop n and v ) vnδ#wXβ ⇒ v¯ vnδ#wxβ (push n and v) nδ#wXβ ⇒ ¯ n ¯ nv ¯ [n]v vnδ#wxβ ( check and push) We exemplify how GIGs can generate similar structural descriptions as HPSGs do in a very oversimpliﬁed and abstract way. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS might be produced using the same production.18 shows an equivalent structural description corresponding to the GIG productions and derivation shown in the next example (which might correspond to an intransitive verb).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.

corresponding to the deriva- . XP → X CP The derivation: CP → Y CP X → x nv n ¯ ¯ CP → Y →y n n#XP ⇒ n#XCP ⇒ nv#xCP ⇒ nv#xY CP ⇒ v#xyCP ⇒ v#xy ¯ ¯ The productions of example 29 (which uses some of the productions corresponding to the previous schemas) generate the structural description represented in ﬁgure 6.. GIGS AND HPSGS [. The following GIG productions generate the structural description corresponding to ﬁgure 6. 3 57 5 4 COMP-DTR S 4 2 2 33 3 2 > C n-2 3 n H C HEAD 1 COMP < 2 1 .] XP [v..20. where the initial conﬁguration of the stack is assumed to be [n]: Example 28 (transitive verb) .] XP [v. 3 n > Figure 6.] 121 YP [n.21.3..6.18: Head-Subject in GIG format #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ #yXP ⇒ n#Y XP ⇒ n#yX ⇒ v#yx Head-Comps-Schema HEAD COMP 1 < 2 HEAD 1 6 77 7 6 6 7 6 S 4 L | C 4SUBJ 2 55 7 6 7 6 COMPS 3 6 2 2 2 3337 7 6 HEAD 1 7 6 6 6 6 6 7777 6 6 HEAD DTR 4 S | L | 4SUBJ 2 5577 6D 6 77 6 4 COMPS union 4 ...] Y [n.19: Head-Comps Schema tree representation Figure 6.] y [v.] X x Figure 6..19 shows the tree structure corresponding to the Head-Complement schema in HPSG.

∗ . Example 29 (SLASH in GIG format) .20: Head-Comp in GIG format tion given in example 29.22 shows how coordination combined with SLASH can be encoded by a GIG.122 [n] CHAPTER 6. APPLICABILITY OF GIGS XP [ v ] X [n v] [n v] CP [ v ] Y [v] CP x y ε Figure 6. XP → Y P XP CP → Y P CP X → know nv ¯¯ n XP → X CP X → hates nv n ¯ ¯ nv¯ ¯ v XP → X XP CP → X → claims Y P → Kim|Sandy|Dana|we A derivation of ‘Kim we know Sandy claims Dana hates’: #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ n#Kim XP ⇒ n#Kim Y P XP ⇒ nn#Kim we XP ⇒ nn#Kim we X XP ⇒ v n#Kim we know XP ⇒ ¯ v n#Kim we know Y P XP ⇒ ¯ n¯n#Kim we know Sandy XP ⇒ v n¯n#Kim we know Sandy X XP ⇒ v v n#Kim we know Sandy claims XP ⇒ ¯ v n#Kim we know Sandy claims Y P XP ⇒ ¯ n¯n#Kim we know Sandy claims Dana XP ⇒ v #Kim we know Sandy claims Dana hates Finally the last example and ﬁgure 6. We show the contents of the stack when each lexical item is introduced in the derivation.

3.6. GIGS AND HPSGS [] 123 XP YP [n] [n] Kim YP [nn] we XP XP X [vn] know YP [nvn] Sandy XP XP X XP [vn] claims YP [nvn] Dana [] hates XP X CP ε Figure 6.21: SLASH in GIG format Example 30 (SLASH and Coordination2) . XP → Y P XP CP → Y P CP X → talk to nv n ¯ ¯ XP → X CP CP → C → and X → did nv ¯¯ XP → X XP X → visit [n¯n]c v CXP → XP CXP Y P → W ho|you n CXP → C XP A derivation of ‘Who did you visit and talk to’: #XP ⇒ #Y P XP ⇒ n#W ho XP ⇒ n#W ho Y P XP ⇒ v n#W ho did XP ⇒ ¯ v n#W ho did Y P XP ⇒ n¯n#W ho did you CXP ⇒ ¯ v n¯n#W ho did you XP CXP ⇒ v cn¯n#W ho did you visit CXP ⇒ v cn¯n#W ho did you visit C XP ⇒ v n¯n#W ho did you visit and XP ⇒ v ∗ .

22: SLASH and coordination in GIG format . APPLICABILITY OF GIGS [] YP [n] Who X [nv] did XP XP YP [nvn] you XP [cnvn] visit ε CXP CXP C [ n v n ] XP [] [ n v n] and talk to CP ε Figure 6.124 #W ho did you visit and talk to XP CHAPTER 6.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- MELJUN CORTES Automata Theory 12
- Academic Paper
- A Parsing Expression Grammar
- yacc
- 2marks AI
- English Exam- Electronica - 2.1
- Pushdown Automaton
- Clan Aspekat i Vreme u Francuskom Jeziku-libre
- chomsky.pdf
- Tiempos Verbales Ingles
- TOC
- 9_cfl1
- examen ingles.doc
- YACC-NKS
- Lesson Plan
- business letter assignment 2015
- 10 Ways to Correct
- screencast rubric
- 5.docx
- feb27-Mar3
- Presentation #2 Handout
- 47-63
- Clasa a V-a 3 Si 4
- Sanskrit
- spanish 1 - 2o repaso
- Presentations Tips
- C6 Unit 4 Lesson B
- spelling term 4
- SLAM! Program Final
- verbos modales

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot usefulClose Dialog## Are you sure?

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

Loading