Dominance Constraints with Set Operators
Dominance constraints are widely used in computational linguistics as a language for talking and reasoning about trees. In this paper, we extend dominance constraints by admitting set operators. We present a solver for dominance constraints with set operators, which is based on propagation and distribution rules, and prove its soundness and completeness. From this solver, we derive an implementation in a constraint programming language with finite sets and prove its faithfullness.
KeywordsConstraint Programming Relation Symbol Distribution Rule Tree Description Base Solver
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.D. Duchier and C. Gardent. A constraint-based treatment of descriptions. In Int. Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, 1999.Google Scholar
- 3.D. Duchier and S. Thater. Parsing with tree descriptions: a constraint-based approach. In Int. Workshop on Natural Language Understanding and Logic Programming, Las Cruces, New Mexico, 1999.Google Scholar
- 4.M. Egg, J. Niehren, P. Ruhrberg, and F. Xu. Constraints over lambda-structures in semantic underspecification. In Joint Conf. COLING/ACL, pages 353–359, 1998.Google Scholar
- 5.C. Gardent and B. Webber. Describing discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th TAG+ Workshop, Philadelphia, 1998.Google Scholar
- 7.A. Koller, K. Mehlhorn, and J. Niehren. A polynomial-time fragment of dominance constraints. Technical report, Programming Systems Lab, Universität des Saarlandes, Apr. 2000. Submitted.Google Scholar
- 8.A. Koller, J. Niehren, and R. Treinen. Dominance constraints: Algorithms and complexity. In Logical Aspects of Comp. Linguistics 98, 2000. To appear in LNCS.Google Scholar
- 9.M. P. Marcus, D. Hindle, and M. M. Fleck. D-theory: Talking about talking about trees. In 21st ACL, pages 129–136, 1983.Google Scholar
- 10.Mozart. The mozart programming system. http://www.mozart-oz.org/.
- 11.T. Müller and M. Müller. Finite set constraints in Oz. In F. Bry, B. Freitag, and D. Seipel, editors, 13. Workshop Logische Programmierung, pages 104–115, Technische Universität München, 1997.Google Scholar
- 12.R. Muskens. Order-Independence and Underspecification. In J. Groenendijk, editor, Ellipsis, Underspecification, Events and More in Dynamic Semantics. DYANA Deliverable R.2.2.C, 1995.Google Scholar
- 13.O. Rambow, K. Vijay-Shanker, and D. Weir. D-tree grammars. In Proceedings of ACL’95, pages 151–158, MIT, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
- 14.J. Rogers and K. Vijay-Shanker. Reasoning with descriptions of trees. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Comp. Linguistics (ACL), 1992.Google Scholar
- 15.J. W. Thatcher and J. B. Wright. Generalized finite automata theory with an application to a decision problem of second-order logic. Mathematical Systems Theory, 2(1):57–81, August 1967.Google Scholar
- 16.W. Thomas. Automata on Infinite Objects. In J. v. Leeuwen, editor, Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Formal Models and Semantics, volume B, chapter 4, pages 133–191. The MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
- 17.K. Vijay-Shanker. Using descriptions of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics, 18:481–518, 1992.Google Scholar