Dominance Constraints: Algorithms and Complexity
Dominance constraints for finite tree structures are widely used in several areas of computational linguistics including syntax, semantics, and discourse. In this paper, we investigate algorithmic and complexity questions for dominance constraints and their first-order theory. The main result of this paper is that the satisfiability problem of dominance constraints is NP-complete. We present two NP algorithms for solving dominance constraints, which have been implemented in the concurrent constraint programming language Oz. Despite the intractability result, the more sophisticated of our algorithms performs well in an application to scope underspecification. We also show that the positive existential fragment of the first-order theory of dominance constraints is NP-complete and that the full first-order theory has non-elementary complexity.
KeywordsDominance constraints complexity computational linguistics underspecification constraint programming
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.Bos, J. Predicate logic unplugged. In Proceedings of the 10th Amsterdam Colloquium, pages 133–143, 1996.Google Scholar
- 3.Duchier, D., and C. Gardent. A constraint-based treatment of descriptions. In Proceedings of IWCS-3, Tilburg, 1999.Google Scholar
- 4.Duchier, D., and J. Niehren. Solving dominance constraints with finite set constraint programming. Technical report, Universität des Saarlandes, Programming Systems Lab, 1999. http://www.ps.uni-sb.de/Papers/abstracts/DomCP99.html.Google Scholar
- 5.Egg, M., J. Niehren, P. Ruhrberg, and F. Xu. Constraints over Lambda-Structures in Semantic Underspecification. In Proceedings COLING/ACL’98, Montreal, 1998.Google Scholar
- 6.Gardent, C., and B. Webber. Describing discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th TAG+ Workshop, Philadelphia, 1998. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
- 7.Johnson, D. S. A catalog of complexity classes. In Leeuwen, J. van, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, vol A: Algorithms and Complexity, chapter 2, pages 67–161. Elsevier, 1990.Google Scholar
- 9.Koller, A., and J. Niehren. Constraint programming in computational linguistics. Submitted. http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~koller/cpcl.html, 1999.
- 10.Koller, A., and J. Niehren. Scope underspecification and processing. Lecture Notes, ESSLLI’ 99, Utrecht, 1999. http://www.coli.uni-sb.de/~koller/papers/esslli99.html
- 11.Marcus, M. P., D. Hindle, and M. M. Fleck. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In Proceedings of the 21st ACL, pages 129–136, 1983.Google Scholar
- 12.Meyer-Viol, W., and R. Kempson. Sequential construction of logical forms. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics, Grenoble, France, 1998.Google Scholar
- 13.Muskens, R. Underspecified semantics. Technical Report 95, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken, 1998. To appear.Google Scholar
- 16.Rogers, J. Studies in the Logic of Trees with Applications to Grammar Formalisms. PhD thesis, University of Delaware, 1994.Google Scholar
- 17.Rogers, J., and K. Vijay-Shanker. Reasoning with descriptions of trees. In Proceedings of the 30th ACL, pages 72–80, University of Delaware, 1992.Google Scholar
- 18.Stockmeyer, L. J., and A. R. Meyer. Word problems requiring exponential time. In 5th Annual ACM Symposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 1–9, 1973.Google Scholar
- 20.Vijay-Shanker, K. Using descriptions of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics, 18:481–518, 1992.Google Scholar