approximating context free grammars for parsing and
play

Approximating Context-Free Grammars for Parsing and Verification - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 20, 2024 •206 likes •1.33k views

Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Approximating Context-Free Grammars for Parsing and Verification Sylvain Schmitz LORIA, INRIA Nancy - Grand Est October 18, 2007 Motivation Approximations

  1. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion A Syntax Issue Parsers /** * smlfvalbind.y * * Standard ML function declarations. * See _The_definition_of_standard_ML_, Milner et al., 1997, * ISBN 0−262−63181−4. Context-free */ %token CASE "case" %token FUN "fun" %token MATCH "=>" %token OF "of" grammar %token VID %start dec %% dec: "fun" fvalbind ; fvalbind: sfvalbind | fvalbind ’|’ sfvalbind ; sfvalbind: VID atpats ’=’ exp ; exp: VID | "case" exp "of" match ; match: mrule | match ’|’ mrule ; mrule: pat "=>" exp ; atpats: atpat | atpats atpat ; . . . atpat: VID ; pat: VID atpat ; %% | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP Parser generator � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � ([], l) = rev l Input Parse � exp � tokens tree � match � � mrule � � sfvalbind � � pat � � exp � � atpats � � exp � Parser . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  2. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Conflicts LALR(1) Parser Generator ◮ GNU Bison state 20 6 exp: "case" exp "of" match . 8 match: match . ’|’ mrule ’|’ shift, and go to state 24 ’|’ [reduce using rule 6 (exp)] ◮ Restricted grammar class

  3. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Conflicts LALR(1) Parser Generator CFG ◮ GNU Bison state 20 6 exp: "case" exp "of" match . 8 match: match . ’|’ mrule ’|’ shift, and go to state 24 ’|’ [reduce using rule 6 (exp)] LALR(1) ◮ Restricted grammar class

  4. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Conflicts Dealing with Conflicts An Objective Measure [Malloy et al., 2002] on a C# Grammar 700 ’2002_malloy.data’ using 1:($2+$3) 600 500 LALR(1) conflicts 400 300 200 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Parser versions

  5. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Conflicts Dealing with Conflicts A Subjective Measure Courtesy of http://www.phdcomics.com .

  6. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Conflicts Dealing with Conflicts A Subjective Measure Courtesy of http://www.phdcomics.com .

  7. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Conflicts Dealing with Conflicts A Subjective Measure Courtesy of http://www.phdcomics.com .

  8. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ Culik and Cohen, 1973] ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, LR( k ) 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs LALR(1) [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  9. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ Culik and Cohen, 1973] LR-Regular ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, LR( k ) 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs LALR(1) [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  10. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ Culik and Cohen, 1973] ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  11. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Ambiguity /** * smlfvalbind.y * * Standard ML function declarations. * See _The_definition_of_standard_ML_, Milner et al., 1997, Context-free * ISBN 0−262−63181−4. */ %token CASE "case" %token FUN "fun" %token MATCH "=>" %token OF "of" grammar %token VID %start dec %% dec: "fun" fvalbind ; fvalbind: sfvalbind | fvalbind ’|’ sfvalbind ; sfvalbind: � exp � VID atpats ’=’ exp ; exp: VID | "case" exp "of" match ; match: mrule � match � | match ’|’ mrule ; mrule: pat "=>" exp ; atpats: atpat | atpats atpat � mrule � ; atpat: VID ; pat: VID atpat � exp � ; %% case a of b = > case b of c = > c | d = > d � match � Parser � match � generator � exp � � pat � � exp � � mrule � � mrule � case a of b = > case b of c = > c | d = > d � exp � � match � � match � Input Parse � mrule � tokens forest � exp � � match � � exp � � pat � � exp � � mrule � � mrule � Parser case a of b = > case b of c = > c | d = > d

  12. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Ambiguity /** * smlfvalbind.y * * Standard ML function declarations. * See _The_definition_of_standard_ML_, Milner et al., 1997, * ISBN 0−262−63181−4. Context-free */ %token CASE "case" %token FUN "fun" %token MATCH "=>" %token OF "of" grammar %token VID %start dec %% dec: "fun" fvalbind ; fvalbind: sfvalbind | fvalbind ’|’ sfvalbind ; sfvalbind: VID atpats ’=’ exp � exp � ; exp: VID | "case" exp "of" match ; match: mrule � match � | match ’|’ mrule ; mrule: pat "=>" exp ; atpats: atpat � mrule � | atpats atpat ; atpat: VID ; pat: VID atpat ; � exp � %% case a of b = > case b of c = > c | d = > d � match � Parser � match � generator � exp � � pat � � exp � � mrule � � mrule � case a of b = > case b of c = > c | d = > d � exp � � match � � match � Input Parse � mrule � tokens forest � exp � � match � � exp � � pat � � exp � � mrule � � mrule � Parser case a of b = > case b of c = > c | d = > d

  13. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ Culik and Cohen, 1973] UCFG ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  14. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ U Culik and n s a f e Cohen, 1973] UCFG LR-Regular ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, LR( k ) 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs LALR(1) [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky S and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] a f e ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  15. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ U Culik and n s a f e Cohen, 1973] HVRU UCFG ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky S and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] a f e ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  16. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions State of the Art CFG ◮ LR( k ) [Knuth, 1965] ◮ LR-Regular [ ˇ U Culik and n s a f e Cohen, 1973] HVRU UCFG LR-Regular ◮ Generalized LR [Tomita, LR( k ) 1986] ◮ Unambiguous CFGs LALR(1) [Cantor, 1962, Chomsky S and Sch¨ utzenberger, 1963] a f e ◮ Horizontal and vertical unambiguity test [Brabrand et al., 2007]

  17. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Contributions ◮ Noncanonical parsing methods [Szymanski and Williams, 1976, Tai, 1979] ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) ◮ Shift-Resolve ◮ Noncanonical unambiguity test ◮ Framework for grammar approximations

  18. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Contributions CFG ◮ Noncanonical parsing methods [Szymanski and Williams, 1976, Tai, 1979] ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) UCFG LR-Regular ◮ Shift-Resolve LR( k ) NLALR(1) ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) unambiguity test ◮ Framework for grammar approximations

  19. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Contributions CFG ◮ Noncanonical parsing methods [Szymanski and Williams, 1976, Tai, 1979] ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) UCFG LR-Regular ◮ Shift-Resolve LR( k ) ShRe ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) unambiguity test ◮ Framework for grammar approximations

  20. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Contributions CFG ◮ Noncanonical parsing methods [Szymanski and Williams, 1976, Tai, 1979] ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) HVRU UCFG NU LR-Regular ◮ Shift-Resolve LR( k ) ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) unambiguity test ◮ Framework for grammar approximations

  21. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Solutions Contributions CFG ◮ Noncanonical parsing methods [Szymanski and Williams, 1976, Tai, 1979] ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) HVRU UCFG NU LR-Regular ◮ Shift-Resolve LR( k ) ◮ Noncanonical LALR(1) unambiguity test ◮ Framework for grammar approximations

  22. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Bracketed Grammars G = � N , T , P , S � , V = N ∪ T 1 � dec � − → fun � fvalbind � 2 � fvalbind � → − � sfvalbind � 3 � fvalbind � ′ | ′ � sfvalbind � � fvalbind � − → 4 � sfvalbind � − → vid � atpats � = � exp � 5 � exp � − → case � exp � of � match � 6 � match � − → � mrule � 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrule � � match � − → 8 � mrule � − → � pat � = > � exp � 9 � atpats � → − � atpat � 10 � atpats � − → � atpats � � atpat � 11 � pat � − → vid � atpat � 12 � atpat � − → vid

  23. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Bracketed Grammars G b = � N , T b , P b , S � , V b = N ∪ T b 1 � dec � − → d 1 fun � fvalbind � r 1 2 � fvalbind � − → d 2 � sfvalbind � r 2 3 d 3 � fvalbind � ′ | ′ � sfvalbind � r 3 � fvalbind � − → 4 � sfvalbind � − → d 4 vid � atpats � = � exp � r 4 5 � exp � − → d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 6 � match � − → d 6 � mrule � r 6 7 d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrule � r 7 � match � − → 8 � mrule � − → d 8 � pat � = > � exp � r 8 9 � atpats � − → d 9 � atpat � r 9 10 � atpats � − → d 10 � atpats � � atpat � r 10 11 � pat � − → d 11 vid � atpat � r 11 12 � atpat � − → d 12 vid r 12

  24. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Positions � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � vid � atpats � � exp � = ′ | ′ · d 4 vid � atpats � = � exp � r 4 r 3 d 3 d 2 � sfvalbind � r 2

  25. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Position Graph Γ Left-to-right Walks in Trees � fvalbind � � fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � d 4 � sfvalbind � vid � atpats � � exp � = ′ | ′ d 4 · vid � atpats � = � exp � r 4 r 3 d 3 d 2 � sfvalbind � r 2

  26. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Position Graph Γ Left-to-right Walks in Trees � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � � sfvalbind � vid � atpats � � exp � = ′ | ′ d 4 vid � atpats � = � exp � r 4 · r 3 d 3 d 2 � sfvalbind � r 2

  27. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Position Graph Γ Left-to-right Walks in Trees � fvalbind � r 3 � fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � � sfvalbind � vid � atpats � � exp � = ′ | ′ d 4 vid � atpats � = � exp � r 4 r 3 · d 3 d 2 � sfvalbind � r 2

  28. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Position Graph Γ Left-to-right Walks in Trees . . . � fvalbind � d 3 r 3 � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � ’ | ’ r 4 d 4 � sfvalbind � � atpats � � exp � d 2 vid = r 2 . . . . . . . . .

  29. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Position Automaton Γ/ ≡ Definition Γ/ ≡ is the quotient of Γ by an equivalence relation ≡ between positions. Theorem (Language over-approximation) L ( G b ) ⊆ L ( Γ/ ≡ ) ∩ T ∗ b

  30. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Example: item 0 Equivalence � fvalbind � d 3 r 3 � fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � r 4 d 4 � sfvalbind � � atpats � � exp � d 2 vid = r 2 r 4 d 4 vid � atpats � � exp � = ◮ equivalence class → vid � atpats � · = � exp � ] 4 [ � sfvalbind � − ◮ LR(0) items ◮ Γ/ item 0 : nondeterministic LR(0) automaton

  31. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Example: item 0 Equivalence → · � sfvalbind � ] →� fvalbind � ′ | ′ · � sfvalbind � ] 2 3 [ � fvalbind � − [ � fvalbind � − d 4 d 4 → · vid � atpats � = � exp � ] 4 [ � sfvalbind � − vid → vid · � atpats � = � exp � ] 4 [ � sfvalbind � − � atpats � → vid � atpats � · = � exp � ] 4 [ � sfvalbind � − = → vid � atpats � = · � exp � ] 4 [ � sfvalbind � − � exp � → vid � atpats � = � exp � · ] 4 [ � sfvalbind � − r 4 r 4 →� sfvalbind � · ] →� fvalbind � ′ | ′ � sfvalbind � · ] 2 3 [ � fvalbind � − [ � fvalbind � − equivalence class

  32. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Summary ◮ general framework for approximations ◮ applications: ◮ parser construction ◮ ambiguity detection ◮ XML validation [Segoufin and Vianu, 2002]? ◮ symbolic supertagging [Boullier, 2003]?

  33. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Grammar Approximations Summary ◮ general framework for approximations ◮ applications: ◮ parser construction ◮ ambiguity detection ◮ XML validation [Segoufin and Vianu, 2002]? ◮ symbolic supertagging [Boullier, 2003]?

  34. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Principles Shift-Resolve Parsing ◮ noncanonical ◮ k = 1 reduced lookahead symbol ◮ resolve = reduce + pushback: emulates a bounded reduced lookahead without any preset bound

  35. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Principles Shift-Resolve Parsing ◮ noncanonical ◮ k = 1 reduced lookahead symbol ◮ resolve = reduce + pushback: emulates a bounded reduced lookahead without any preset bound

  36. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Example Shift-Resolve Parse � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � exp � � sfvalbind � � atpats � � exp � . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  37. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Example Shift-Resolve Parse � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � exp � � match � � mrule � � sfvalbind � � pat � � exp � � atpats � � exp � . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  38. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Example Shift-Resolve Parse � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � exp � � match � � mrule � � sfvalbind � � pat � � exp � � atpats � � exp � . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  39. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Example Shift-Resolve Parse � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � exp � � match � � mrule � � sfvalbind � � pat � � exp � � atpats � � exp � . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  40. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Example Shift-Resolve Parse � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � exp � � match � � mrule � � sfvalbind � � pat � � exp � � atpats � � exp � . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  41. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parsing Example Shift-Resolve Parse � fvalbind � � fvalbind � � sfvalbind � � exp � � match � � mrule � � sfvalbind � � pat � � exp � � atpats � � exp � . . . | NONE = > filterP(r, l) | filterP ([], l) = rev l

  42. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Generating the Parser 1. position automaton 2. determinization by subset construction

  43. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Principle ◮ d i transitions denote traditional item closures ◮ r i transitions denote a phrase that should be reduced ◮ other transitions denote shifts ◮ items in the construction hold 1. a state of the position automaton 2. a parsing action 3. a pushback length

  44. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Principle ◮ d i transitions denote traditional item closures ◮ r i transitions denote a phrase that should be reduced ◮ other transitions denote shifts ◮ items in the construction hold 1. a state of the position automaton 2. a parsing action 3. a pushback length

  45. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �−

  46. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− r 5 → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �−

  47. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 r 4 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �−

  48. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ −

  49. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ −

  50. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ − ’ | ’ →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ · � sfvalbind � , 5, 1 � fvalbind �− →� match � ’ | ’ · � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �−

  51. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ − ’ | ’ →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ · � sfvalbind � , 5, 1 � fvalbind �− →� match � ’ | ’ · � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− d 8 → · � pat � = > � exp � , 0, 0 � mrule �−

  52. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Subset Construction Example → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ − ’ | ’ →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ · � sfvalbind � , 5, 1 � fvalbind �− →� match � ’ | ’ · � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → · � pat � = > � exp � , 0, 0 � mrule �− → · vid � atpat � , 0, 0 � pat �− → · vid � atpats � = � exp � , 0, 0 � sfvalbind �−

  53. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Construction Failure → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ −

  54. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Construction Failure → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 r 5 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ − →� pat � ’ | ’ � exp � · , 5, 0 � mrule �−

  55. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Construction Failure → case � exp � of � match � · , 0, 0 � exp �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 0, 0 � match �− → vid � atpats � = � exp � · , 5, 0 � sfvalbind �− →� fvalbind � ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� sfvalbind � · , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− →� fvalbind � · ’ | ’ � sfvalbind � , 5, 0 � fvalbind �− → fun � fvalbind � · , 5, 0 � dec �− →� dec � · $, 5, 0 S ′ − →� pat � ’ | ’ � exp � · , 5, 0 � mrule �− →� mrule � · , 5, 0 � match �− →� match � · ’ | ’ � mrule � , 5, 0 � match �−

  56. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Complexity ◮ | Γ/ ≡ | : size of the position automaton ◮ |A| : size of the parser: O ( 2 | Γ/ ≡ | | P | ) ◮ parsing time complexity for input w : O ( | w | )

  57. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Complexity ◮ | Γ/ ≡ | : size of the position automaton | Γ/ item 0 | = O ( |G| ) ◮ |A| : size of the parser: O ( 2 | Γ/ ≡ | | P | ) ◮ parsing time complexity for input w : O ( | w | )

  58. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Limitations − incomparable with classical parsing techniques + subset construction mendable

  59. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Limitations − incomparable with classical parsing techniques + subset construction mendable

  60. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Parser Construction Summary ◮ Shift Resolve parsers 1. Large class of grammars accepted 2. Unambiguity 3. Linear time parsing ◮ 2-steps construction 1. Simple 2. Flexible

  61. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Principles ◮ a bracketed sentence = a derivation tree ◮ ambiguity = more than one tree with the same yield d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 5 case d 14 vid r 14 of d 7 d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 5 case d 14 vid r 14 of d 7 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 ◮ construct a FSA A such that L ( G b ) ⊆ L ( A ) , and look for bracketed sentences with the same yield

  62. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Principles ◮ a bracketed sentence = a derivation tree ◮ ambiguity = more than one tree with the same yield d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 5 case d 14 vid r 14 of d 7 d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 5 case d 14 vid r 14 of d 7 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 ◮ construct a FSA A such that L ( G b ) ⊆ L ( A ) , and look for bracketed sentences with the same yield

  63. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Principles ◮ a bracketed sentence = a derivation tree ◮ ambiguity = more than one tree with the same yield d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 5 case d 14 vid r 14 of d 7 d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 5 case d 14 vid r 14 of d 7 d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ d 8 d 13 vid r 13 = > d 14 vid r 14 r 8 r 7 ◮ construct a FSA A such that L ( G b ) ⊆ L ( A ) , and look for bracketed sentences with the same yield

  64. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Regular Unambiguity RU( ≡ ) ◮ G is regular unambiguous for ≡ of finite index, if there does not exist w b � w ′ b in L ( Γ/ ≡ ) ∩ T ∗ b with h ( w b ) = h ( w ′ b ) ◮ LR(0) � RU( item 0 ) ◮ regular approximations are too weak

  65. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Regular Unambiguity RU( ≡ ) ◮ G is regular unambiguous for ≡ of finite index, if there does not exist w b � w ′ b in L ( Γ/ ≡ ) ∩ T ∗ b with h ( w b ) = h ( w ′ b ) ◮ LR(0) � RU( item 0 ) ◮ regular approximations are too weak

  66. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Nonterminal Transitions ◮ SF ( G b ) ⊆ L ( Γ/ ≡ ) ◮ look for two di ff erent bracketed sentential forms in L ( Γ/ ≡ ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 ◮ a nonterminal transition represents exactly its derived context-free language

  67. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Nonterminal Transitions ◮ SF ( G b ) ⊆ L ( Γ/ ≡ ) ◮ look for two di ff erent bracketed sentential forms in L ( Γ/ ≡ ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 ◮ a nonterminal transition represents exactly its derived context-free language

  68. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Nonterminal Transitions ◮ SF ( G b ) ⊆ L ( Γ/ ≡ ) ◮ look for two di ff erent bracketed sentential forms in L ( Γ/ ≡ ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 ◮ a nonterminal transition represents exactly its derived context-free language

  69. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 epsilon: mae

  70. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 epsilon: mae

  71. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 epsilon: mae

  72. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 shift: mas

  73. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 d 14 vid r 14 = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 nothing!

  74. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 shift: mas

  75. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 conflict: mac

  76. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 conflict: mac

  77. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 conflict: mac

  78. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 shift: mas

  79. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 reduce: mar

  80. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Mutual Accessibility Relations ◮ between pairs of states of Γ/ ≡ , ( q 1 , q 2 ) ◮ synchronized left-to-right walks from an initial pair ( q s , q s ) d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of d 7 � match � ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 r 5 r 8 r 6 ′ | ′ � mrules � r 7 d 7 d 6 d 8 � pat � = > d 5 case � exp � of � match � r 5 r 8 r 6 conflict: mac

  81. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity NU( ≡ ) ◮ ma = mas ∪ mae ∪ mac ∪ mar ◮ G is noncanonically unambiguous if there does not exist a relation ( q s , q s ) ma ∗ ( q f , q f ) that uses mac at some step ◮ Computation in O ( | Γ/ ≡ | 2 ) in space

  82. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Comparisons ◮ Regular Unambiguity RU( ≡ ) ◮ Bounded-length detection schemes ◮ LR( k ) and LR-Regular (LR( Π )) ◮ Horizontal and vertical ambiguity (HVRU( ≡ ))

  83. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity Bounded-length detection [Gorn, 1963, Cheung and Uzgalis, 1995, Schr¨ oer, 2001, Jampana, 2005] ◮ generate sentences ◮ not conservative ◮ prefix m prevents from false positives in sentences of length < m ◮ need to generate a 2 n + 1 to find G n 4 ambiguous, but G n 4 � NU ( item 0 ) S − → A | B n a , A − → Aaa | a , B 1 − → aa , B 2 − → B 1 B 1 , . . . , B n − → B n − 1 B n − 1 ( G n 4 )

  84. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Noncanonical Unambiguity LR( k ) and LR-Regular [Knuth, 1965, Hunt III et al., 1975, ˇ Culik and Cohen, 1973, Heilbrunner, 1983] ◮ conservative tests ◮ define item Π s.t. LR ( Π ) ⊂ NU ( item Π ) ◮ need a LR(2 n ) test to prove G n 3 unambiguous, but G n 3 ∈ NU ( item 0 ) S − → A | B n , A − → Aaa | a , B 1 − → aa , B 2 − → B 1 B 1 , . . . , B n − → B n − 1 B n − 1 ( G n 3 )

  85. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Experimental Results Implementation ◮ For the whole SML grammar: ◮ conflicts in the LALR(1) parser sml.y: conflicts: 223 shift/reduce, 35 reduce/reduce ◮ Our tool: 89 potential ambiguities with LR(1) precision detected ◮ For the SML grammar fragment: 2 potential ambiguities with LR(0) precision detected: (match -> mrule . , match -> match . ’|’ mrule ) (match -> match . ’|’ mrule , match -> match ’|’ mrule . ) ◮ NU( item 1 ) correctly identifies 87% of our unambiguous grammars—73% of the non-LALR(1) ones

  86. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Experimental Results Summary ◮ conservative ambiguity detection ◮ provably better than several other techniques ◮ also experimentally better

  87. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Closing Comments Conclusion ◮ Main issues in parser development: ◮ nondeterminism ◮ ambiguity in particular ◮ Deterministic parsers for larger classes of grammars ◮ Ambiguity detection algorithm

  88. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Future Work Directions for Future Work ◮ Linear time parsing for NU( ≡ ) grammars? ◮ Improved implementation ◮ Noncanonical languages ◮ Regular approximations

  89. Motivation Approximations Shift-Resolve Parsing Ambiguity Detection Conclusion Future Work Thanks!

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend

3. Parsing 3.1 Context-Free Grammars and Push-Down Automata 3.2 Recursive Descent Parsing 3.3

3. Parsing 3.1 Context-Free Grammars and Push-Down Automata 3.2 Recursive Descent Parsing 3.3

3. Parsing 3.1 Context-Free Grammars and Push-Down Automata 3.2 Recursive Descent Parsing 3.3 LL(1) Property 3.4 Error Handling 1 Context-Free Grammars Problem Regular Grammars cannot handle central recursion E = x | &quot;(&quot; E

419 views • 39 slides
Parsing, and Context-Free Grammars Michael Collins, Columbia University Overview An

Parsing, and Context-Free Grammars Michael Collins, Columbia University Overview An

Parsing, and Context-Free Grammars Michael Collins, Columbia University Overview An introduction to the parsing problem Context free grammars A brief(!) sketch of the syntax of English Examples of ambiguous structures Parsing

886 views • 45 slides
Last class Constituents and their heads Context-free grammars English Syntax and Parsing

Last class Constituents and their heads Context-free grammars English Syntax and Parsing

Last class Constituents and their heads Context-free grammars English Syntax and Parsing ANLP: Lecture 12 Structural ambiguity Shay Cohen Today: School of Informatics Chomsky normal form for context-free grammars University of

275 views • 16 slides
Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse

Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse

Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse Trees Ambiguity, Precedence, and Associativity Top Down Parsing Recursive Descent, LL Bottom Up Parsing SLR, LR, LALR Yacc

911 views • 73 slides
Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse

Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse

Concepts Introduced in Chapter 4 Grammars Context-Free Grammars Derivations and Parse Trees Ambiguity, Precedence, and Associativity Top Down Parsing Recursive Descent, LL Bottom Up Parsing SLR, LR, LALR Yacc

1.61k views • 83 slides
Natural Language Parsing with Context-Free Grammars SPFLODD

Natural Language Parsing with Context-Free Grammars SPFLODD

Natural Language Parsing with Context-Free Grammars SPFLODD September 10, 2013 What is Parsing? General answer: analyze text with respect to

1.06k views • 73 slides
Dependency Parsing Dr. Besnik Fetahu Parsing so far Use context free grammars to

Dependency Parsing Dr. Besnik Fetahu Parsing so far Use context free grammars to

Dependency Parsing Dr. Besnik Fetahu Parsing so far Use context free grammars to determine constituents in a clause or sentence Use CFGs to parse entire sentences into constituency based parse trees, e.g. syntactic parse trees In

461 views • 42 slides
Parsing of Context-Free Grammars Bernd Kiefer { Bernd.Kiefer } @dfki.de Deutsches

Parsing of Context-Free Grammars Bernd Kiefer { Bernd.Kiefer } @dfki.de Deutsches

Parsing of Context-Free Grammars Bernd Kiefer { Bernd.Kiefer } @dfki.de Deutsches Forschungszentrum f ur k unstliche Intelligenz Introduction to CL - Context-Free Grammars p.1/32 Limits of Regular Expressions Assignment: Write a

1.62k views • 130 slides
Top-Down Parsing 1 Parsing: Review of the Big Picture (1) Context-free grammars (CFGs)

Top-Down Parsing 1 Parsing: Review of the Big Picture (1) Context-free grammars (CFGs)

Top-Down Parsing 1 Parsing: Review of the Big Picture (1) Context-free grammars (CFGs) Generation: Recognition: Given , is Translation Given , create a parse tree for Given , create an AST for The AST is

317 views • 29 slides
Parsing: Introduction Context-free Grammars Chomsky hierarchy Type 0 Grammars/Languages

Parsing: Introduction Context-free Grammars Chomsky hierarchy Type 0 Grammars/Languages

Parsing: Introduction Context-free Grammars Chomsky hierarchy Type 0 Grammars/Languages rewrite rules ; are any string of terminals and nonterminals Context-sensitive Grammars/Languages rewrite rules:

760 views • 26 slides
Comparison of Context-free Grammars Based on Parsing Generated Test Data Bernd Fischer &amp;

Comparison of Context-free Grammars Based on Parsing Generated Test Data Bernd Fischer &amp;

Comparison of Context-free Grammars Based on Parsing Generated Test Data Bernd Fischer &amp; Ralf Lmmel &amp; Vadim Zaytsev 2011 Grammar nonequivalence Undecidable. Can we cheat? Converge grammars semi-automatically. Perform

596 views • 24 slides
Last class ANLP Lecture 15 Probabilistic context-free grammars Dependency Syntax and Parsing

Last class ANLP Lecture 15 Probabilistic context-free grammars Dependency Syntax and Parsing

Last class ANLP Lecture 15 Probabilistic context-free grammars Dependency Syntax and Parsing Probabilistic CYK Shay Cohen (based on slides by Sharon Goldwater Best-first parsing and Nathan Schneider) Problems with PCFGs (model

427 views • 13 slides
Parsing Probabilistic Context Free Grammars CMSC 473/673 UMBC November 8 th , 2017 Recap from

Parsing Probabilistic Context Free Grammars CMSC 473/673 UMBC November 8 th , 2017 Recap from

Parsing Probabilistic Context Free Grammars CMSC 473/673 UMBC November 8 th , 2017 Recap from last time Constituents Help Form Grammars constituent: spans of words that act (syntactically) as a group X phrase (noun phrase) Baltimore

798 views • 63 slides
Algorithms for NLP CS 11-711 Fall 2020 Lecture 11: Syntactic parsing and context-free grammars

Algorithms for NLP CS 11-711 Fall 2020 Lecture 11: Syntactic parsing and context-free grammars

Algorithms for NLP CS 11-711 Fall 2020 Lecture 11: Syntactic parsing and context-free grammars Emma Strubell Announcements Fridays recitation will be a P2 Q&amp;A + questions to work through. 2 Ambiguity I saw the woman with the

1.88k views • 172 slides
Probabilistic Context Free Grammars CMSC 473/673 UMBC Outline Recap: MT word alignment

Probabilistic Context Free Grammars CMSC 473/673 UMBC Outline Recap: MT word alignment

Probabilistic Context Free Grammars CMSC 473/673 UMBC Outline Recap: MT word alignment Structure in Language: Constituency (Probabilistic) Context Free Grammars Definitions High-level tasks: Generating and Parsing Some uses for PCFGs CKY

1.66k views • 116 slides
Parsing: Episode I Matthew Might University of Utah matt.might.net ucombinator.org

Parsing: Episode I Matthew Might University of Utah matt.might.net ucombinator.org

Parsing: Episode I Matthew Might University of Utah matt.might.net ucombinator.org Administrivia Project 1: Use the source! Agenda What is parsing? Context-free languages Context-free grammars Recursive descent parsing

755 views • 60 slides
Write Less, Say More Technical Writing Skills for Clerks 2016 Clerks Certificaiton Institute

Write Less, Say More Technical Writing Skills for Clerks 2016 Clerks Certificaiton Institute

Write Less, Say More Technical Writing Skills for Clerks 2016 Clerks Certificaiton Institute October 27, 2016 Chris Robinson Vice President, Wilkes Community College The difference between the almost right word and the right word is

1.24k views • 89 slides
Novel Platform Using LC-MS and Ligand Binding Assays for Characterization and PK analysis of ADCs

Novel Platform Using LC-MS and Ligand Binding Assays for Characterization and PK analysis of ADCs

Novel Platform Using LC-MS and Ligand Binding Assays for Characterization and PK analysis of ADCs Jasja Wolthoorn, TNO Triskelion BV EBF Barcelona, 22 nd November 2013 THE DEVELOPMENT OF LARGE MOLECULES Recombinant Therapeutic Novel

497 views • 30 slides
Elisabeth George, Technology Appraisals Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, NICE Workshop on

Elisabeth George, Technology Appraisals Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, NICE Workshop on

HTA of Companion Diagnostics Elisabeth George, Technology Appraisals Centre for Health Technology Evaluation, NICE Workshop on Pharmacogenomics: from science to clinical care 8-9 October 2012 European Medicines Agency, London, United Kingdom

411 views • 23 slides
Design and realisation of a pilot site for monitoring Infiltrated soil water under a real on-site

Design and realisation of a pilot site for monitoring Infiltrated soil water under a real on-site

Design and realisation of a pilot site for monitoring Infiltrated soil water under a real on-site treatment system; evaluation of soil functions Behzad NASRI*, Olivier FOUCH*and**, Christophe SAILL**, David RAMIER*** and Martin SEIDL* *

297 views • 28 slides
PROGRAMMING TENSOR CORES: NATIVE VOLTA TENSOR CORES WITH CUTLASS Andrew Kerr, Timmy Liu, Mostafa

PROGRAMMING TENSOR CORES: NATIVE VOLTA TENSOR CORES WITH CUTLASS Andrew Kerr, Timmy Liu, Mostafa

PROGRAMMING TENSOR CORES: NATIVE VOLTA TENSOR CORES WITH CUTLASS Andrew Kerr, Timmy Liu, Mostafa Hagog, Julien Demouth, John Tran March 20, 2019 PROGRAMMING TENSOR CORES IN CUDA mma.sync (new instruction in CUDA 10.1) Feeding the Data Path

615 views • 47 slides
Probably the worlds best stateless Ethernet traffic generation and analysis platform 2 1 2

Probably the worlds best stateless Ethernet traffic generation and analysis platform 2 1 2

1 Probably the worlds best stateless Ethernet traffic generation and analysis platform 2 1 2 4 5 6 3 OVERVIEW TYPES OF TESTS HARDWARE SOFTWARE AUTOMATION KEY FEATURES LEARN MORE 3 OVERVIEW Valkyrie is a full-featured stateless

805 views • 43 slides
Retrospective Dosimetry Based on Long Lived Free Radicals Harold Swartz, M.D., Ph.D. Geisel

Retrospective Dosimetry Based on Long Lived Free Radicals Harold Swartz, M.D., Ph.D. Geisel

Retrospective Dosimetry Based on Long Lived Free Radicals Harold Swartz, M.D., Ph.D. Geisel Medical School at Dartmouth Region near Fukushima reactor site Dose distribution from fallout about May 1, 2011 Map shows the radiation dose that

422 views • 19 slides
Rem ediation of 1, 4-Dioxane Presented by Mike Marley April 26th, 2016 Agenda Basic

Rem ediation of 1, 4-Dioxane Presented by Mike Marley April 26th, 2016 Agenda Basic

Do it Right, Do it once Rem ediation of 1, 4-Dioxane Presented by Mike Marley April 26th, 2016 Agenda Basic properties of 1,4-dioxane with respect to remediation A discussion of applicable reliable remedial technologies with case

811 views • 38 slides

More recommend