Advertisement

Dominance Constraints with Set Operators

  • Denys Duchier
  • Joachim Niehren
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1861)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Constraint Programming Relation Symbol Distribution Rule Tree Description Base Solver 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Backofen, J. Rogers, and K. Vijay-Shanker. A first-order axiomatization of the theory of finite trees. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 4:5–39, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Duchier and C. Gardent. A constraint-based treatment of descriptions. In Int. Workshop on Computational Semantics, Tilburg, 1999.Google Scholar
  3. 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. 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. 5.
    C. Gardent and B. Webber. Describing discourse semantics. In Proceedings of the 4th TAG+ Workshop, Philadelphia, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    C. Gervet. Interval propagation to reason about sets: Definition and implementation of a practical language. Constraints, 1(3):191–244, 1997.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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. 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. 10.
    Mozart. The mozart programming system. http://www.mozart-oz.org/.
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17.
    K. Vijay-Shanker. Using descriptions of trees in a tree adjoining grammar. Computational Linguistics, 18:481–518, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denys Duchier
    • 1
  • Joachim Niehren
    • 1
  1. 1.Programming Systems LabUniversität des Saarlandes SaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations